Not necessary to implead civil authority or registration officer in bail pleas filed by foreigners: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that it is not necessary to implead or issue notice to the civil authority or registration officer under the Foreigners Act, 1946, in bail applications filed by foreign nationals.

“We do not see any propriety in issuing a direction that either the civil authority or the registration officer should be made a party to a bail application filed by a foreigner, or a notice of the bail application be issued to the said authorities," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The bench said when a foreigner’s presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge, permission to leave India must be refused.

“Under the Order (the Foreigners Order, 1948), the Civil Authority can impose restrictions on the movements of a foreigner. Therefore, once a foreigner is released on bail, he cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority, as provided in clause 5 of the Order,” the bench said.

The court said that once a foreigner is released on bail, he cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority, as provided in clause 5 of the Order and under clause 11 and other clauses of the Order, various restrictions can be imposed on a foreigner while he is in India.

"The said power is wholly independent of the power to grant bail," the bench explained.

The court examined the issues whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (the Rules) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (the Act).

The bench said that the reason is that the authorities under the Act and the Order (the Foreigners Order, 1948) have no locus to oppose bail application filed by a foreigner unless bail is sought where the allegation is of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act.

The impleadment of the civil authority or registration officer in all bail applications filed by foreigners may result in unnecessary delay in deciding the bail applications, the court felt.

“All that can be done is that while releasing a foreigner on bail, the court should direct the investigating agency or the state, as the case may be, to immediately inform the concerned registration officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules about the grant of bail so that the Registration Officer can bring the fact of the grant of bail to the notice of concerned Civil Authority,” the bench said.

The court said while granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the state or prosecuting agency, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned registration officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, would communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the civil authorities.

“If such information is furnished, it will enable the authorities under the Act, the Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law," the bench said.

The court directed forwarding a copy of this order to registrar generals of all the high courts, who in turn will forward the copies of the order to all the criminal courts in the respective states.

The court's order came on a plea filed by amicus curiae in its July 8, 2024 judgment.

The bench had then said that courts should not order an accused to share his Google PIN location with the authorities, as imposing a condition like this for bail would be virtually peeping into the privacy of the person.