|
Rejecting the bail application of a man alleged to be a Bangladeshi national, the Bombay High Court noted that Aadhaar, PAN, and Voter ID, without verification, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of citizenship.
The judgement by single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar said on Tuesday, "Merely relying on the existence of certain identity documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID, without verification of the process through which these were obtained, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship at this stage, particularly when the very authenticity of such documents is under investigation." Justice Borkar mentioned that the claim of citizenship can only be examined under the rules of the Citizenship Act, 1955. "The claim of citizenship must be examined strictly under the rules of the Citizenship Act, 1955, including whether the person meets the conditions under Sections 3 to 6, or any special provisions applicable to their case," the judgement read. The prosecution alleged that the applicant is a Bangladeshi national and has forged the identity cards. During the investigation, the police found his birth certificate belonging to Bangladesh. However, the court at this stage has not decided whether the documents presented by the accused are forged or not. "During the investigation, the applicant's mobile phone was taken by the police as per law and sent for forensic examination. From the data recovered from the phone, copies of two birth certificates were found, one said to be of the applicant himself and the other of a woman claimed to be his mother. Both these documents show the place of birth as being in Bangladesh... The Court is not deciding at this stage whether the documents are true or false, that will be decided at the trial. But the fact that such documents have been found on the applicant's own phone is important and cannot be ignored," Justice Borkar said in his judgment. Rejecting the bail plea, Justice Borkar said that the accused can apply for bail if the trial is not concluded within a year. "However, it shall be open for the applicant to revive his request for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today," the judgment read. (ANI)
|
