An Ahmedabad court has refused to grant regular bail to a Bangladeshi national who was apprehended last month at the city's international airport while attempting to travel abroad using a counterfeit Indian passport. The decision underscores the serious legal ramifications of identity fraud and document forgery.
The Airport Arrest and Charges
Joyant, also known as Jayant Biswas, was arrested on November 29 during a routine emigration check at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad. Officials discovered he was travelling under the fabricated identity of one Bhadra Ridoy. His destination was Dubai. Following his detention, police registered a case against him under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the stringent Passport Act.
Contrasting Arguments in Court
During the bail hearing, the defence and prosecution presented starkly different narratives. Biswas's lawyer pleaded for bail, stating his client is a young man from the India-Bangladesh border region. He argued that Biswas did not personally forge any documents, had fully cooperated with investigators during custodial interrogation, and needed to be released to care for his elderly parents. He assured the court of his client's compliance with any bail conditions imposed.
Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Sudhir Brahmbhatt presented a compelling counter-argument. He revealed that the accused had been illegally residing in India since 2017. To cement his false Indian identity, Biswas had allegedly acquired a suite of crucial documents including an Aadhaar card, a ration card, and a PAN card based on fraudulent information. He used these to obtain an Indian passport, which was ultimately detected at the airport.
The Court's Decisive Ruling
After considering the submissions from both sides, Additional Sessions Judge P B Patel delivered a firm verdict denying bail. The judge emphasized the gravity of the offence, noting that the charges against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment that can extend up to a life term.
Weighing all circumstances and the serious nature of the allegations, the court concluded that releasing the accused on bail at this stage would not serve the interests of justice. The ruling highlights the judiciary's strict stance on cases involving national security, identity theft, and the integrity of official documents.
