Bail denied to foreign national for abetment of suicide and unauthorized overstaying using forged documents.

The petitioner, a foreign national, filed an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Daragha Bazar P.S. Case No. 39 of 2025

The petitioner is accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased by blackmailing her for money following a relationship

Procedurally, the Investigation Officer (IO) submitted a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner had been overstaying in India since April 2020 without valid documents and had forged his passport and visa

The petitioner contended that the allegations were concocted and that the SIM card used for the alleged blackmail was not recovered from him

The State and Informant opposed bail, citing a suicide note naming the petitioner and evidence from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) indicating the petitioner’s visa was forged and belonged to another individual

The court primarily considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail

It applied provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 108 (Abetment), 318(4) (Cheating), and 336 (Forgery)

Furthermore, the court relied on Section 67/67-A of the IT Act regarding electronic blackmail, and Sections 12(1)(d) and 12(1)(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, alongside Sections 22 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, concerning the illegal stay and use of forged documents by foreign nationals

The court weighed the nature and gravity of the accusations against the petitioner’s plea for liberty.

It observed that the deceased’s suicide note specifically mentioned a SIM number that was subsequently tracked and recovered from the petitioner

The court found significant weight in the IO's report, supported by the FRRO Hyderabad, which confirmed that the petitioner’s Visa (No. VJ5038102) was a forged document belonging to another foreigner

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s conduct—specifically overstaying in India since 2020 through impersonation and forgery—indicated a high risk of absconding

It determined that the prima facie involvement in abetment of suicide, coupled with the lack of valid travel documents, made it "hazardous" to grant bail as there was no guarantee the petitioner would appear for trial

It held that given the gravity of the offenses, the evidence of forgery, and the petitioner's status as an illegal immigrant, bail could not be granted

The application (BLAPL) was disposed of with a direction to transmit the order to the concerned trial court