Mumbai Court Rejects Bail in Suspected Illegal Immigration Case
A Mumbai court has denied bail to a man suspected to be a Myanmar national, citing his alleged illegal entry into India without valid documentation and communications with relatives in Bangladesh. The ruling came on November 9, 2025, when Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate K S Zanwar rejected the bail application of Mohammed Rafiq.
Court's Reasoning Behind Bail Rejection
The court expressed serious concerns about releasing the accused, stating that it would effectively permit him to remain in India without a valid visa. Magistrate Zanwar emphasized in his order that "the possibility of tampering with witnesses and fleeing away from the proceeding cannot be ruled out." The court further warned that if Rafiq were to abscond, it would prove fatal to the legal proceedings against him.
During the hearing, the Mumbai Police strongly opposed Rafiq's bail plea, presenting evidence that included phone records showing calls to numbers with Bangladesh's country code. Investigators discovered that Rafiq had been in contact with relatives from Myanmar, including an aunt currently residing in a shelter home in Bangladesh.
Defense Claims and Documentation Issues
Mohammed Rafiq had presented his defense to the court, claiming that his father was an Indian citizen while his mother, originally from Myanmar, had acquired Indian citizenship after marriage. However, the court found his documentation insufficient to establish lawful citizenship.
Rafiq had submitted photocopies of his Aadhaar card and PAN card as proof of identity, but the court ruled that the mere existence of these documents cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship. The police investigation revealed that Rafiq had allegedly crossed into India illegally with his mother due to poverty and unemployment in his home country.
The case has been registered under relevant sections of the Foreigners Act, highlighting the ongoing legal challenges surrounding immigration and citizenship documentation in India. The court's decision underscores the stringent approach being taken in cases involving suspected illegal entry, particularly when connections to other countries are established through communication evidence.
