21.07.2026 Item No.36 Court No.9 CHC (Interim Bail) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side C.R.M.(M) 154 of 2026 In Re:- An application for post arrest bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kharibari Police Station Case No.219 of 2025 dated 04.08.2025 under Sections 14A and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946. And In the matter of : Palash Chandra Roy ...… petitioner Mr. Subham Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Mayank Roy, Advocate .…for the petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Uday Bhattacharjee, Advocate Ms. Baishali Chakrabarty, Advocate ...for the State 1. Bail prayer of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 2. This is a case under Sections 14A and 14C of the Foreigners Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Bangladeshi citizen. However, he had to flee from Bangladesh due to religious persecution. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is exempted from producing any travel document for entering into the Indian territory without a 2 valid document in terms of the provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to approach the competent authority to seek exemption on passport and visa requirement. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon orders passed in CRM(M) 395 of 2025 (In the matter of: Attet Roy), CRM(R) 23 of 2026 (In Re: Sourav Mohanta @ Sourav Mohonto @ Anik Mohanta @ Papan & Anr.) and CRM (R) 65 of 2025 (Sukumar Chandra Shil vs. Sukumar Shil) passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court. 4. Petitioner prays for being released on bail on the basis of exemption provided under the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025. 5. Learned advocate for the State submits that although the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner contains that petitioner had to leave Bangladesh due to religious persecution but there is no such material in the documents relating to prosecution case. 6. The petitioner was detained by BSF in pursuance of source information. Petitioner was then residing in the District of Darjeeling at the house of his maternal uncle. The contents of the chargesheet go to show that being apprehended, the petitioner is alleged to have stated that he was a 3 Bangladeshi residing in India since October, 2024 and he has been residing at the house of his maternal uncle. 7. In Sukumar Chandra Shil (supra), the coordinate Bench held that although the petitioner was arrested on July 15, 2025 but there was nothing on record to show that petitioner entered into India on that very day and not prior to that. The coordinate Bench also held that the petitioner should be granted opportunity to appear before the competent authority to seek exemption under clause 3(e) of The Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025. Such provision was held by the coordinate Bench to a welfare provision for those seeking shelter under the fear of persecution. 8. Similarly, in Sourav Mohanta @ Sourav Mohonto @ Anik Mohanta @ Papan & Anr. (supra) another coordinate Bench held as follows:- “9. In view of the order of the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 1st September, 2025, and in view of the fact that the petitioners entered India prior to the cut-off date, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioners.” 9. Similar view was expressed in Attet Roy (supra). 10. Clause 3(e) of the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 reads as follows:- “3(e). a person belonging to a minority community in Afganistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, namely, 4 Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian, who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and entered into India on or before the 31st December 2024. (i) without valid documents including passport or other travel documents; or (ii) with valid documents including passport or other travel documents and the validity of such documents have expired.” 11. In the case at hand, the petitioner was apprehended on August 4, 2025. According to the case of prosecution, petitioner has been residing in Indian territory since October 2024 which is within the date specified in Clause 3(e) of the Act of 2025. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the provisions of Clause 3(e) of 2025 and also in consideration of the ratio laid down by the coordinate Benches in the aforementioned cases the petitioner may be released on interim bail. 13. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner, namely, Palash Chandra Roy shall be released on interim bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, at Siliguri and on further condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station and shall report 5 to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station once in a fortnight until further order. 14. The order of interim bail shall continue till August 31, 2026 to enable the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority for exemption. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)