Court may waive remaining sentence and direct deportation of a foreign national upon the State’s no-objection.

The appellant, a Bangladeshi national, was detained on 6 October 2024 at ABS Railway Station during checking by railway police and BSF personnel.

She and another woman allegedly failed to produce valid passports or visas and disclosed that they had entered India without valid documents.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the Sessions Court framed charges under Section 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(3) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

The appellant pleaded guilty and declined to stand trial.

The Sessions Court convicted her and sentenced her to five years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 336(3) of the BNS, and two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 3(3) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act.

In appeal, the appellant sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone or repatriation to Bangladesh.

The State informed the High Court that it had no objection to her being pushed back to Bangladesh instead of being detained to serve the remaining sentence.

Whether, in view of the appellant’s guilty plea, absence of antecedents, period already spent in custody, and the State’s no-objection to repatriation, the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone?

Whether the appellant could be directed to be pushed back to Bangladesh in accordance with procedure instead of undergoing the remaining period of imprisonment?

The Court applied Section 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(3) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, under which the appellant had been convicted for the charged offences.

It also applied the sentencing principle that, while modifying sentence in an appellate proceeding, the Court may adopt a lenient view where the offence is a first or primary offence, the accused has no criminal antecedents, has pleaded guilty, and the circumstances justify reduction of punishment.

The Court further acted on the State Government’s position that the appellant could be repatriated to Bangladesh in accordance with procedure.

The appellant’s conviction was based on her plea of guilt, and there was no dispute regarding her illegal entry into India without valid travel documents.

However, the Court noted that she had no antecedents, had already remained in custody since her arrest, and had not misrepresented her identity.

The State Government expressly stated that it had no objection to her repatriation to Bangladesh instead of her continued incarceration.

Considering these factors and treating the conduct as a primary offence, the Court exercised leniency and held that the period already undergone was sufficient, subject to her being pushed back to Bangladesh in accordance with law.

The appellant’s sentence was reduced to the period of custody already undergone, and the remaining sentence was waived.

The State was directed to take all necessary steps to push the appellant back to Bangladesh in accordance with procedure.

Until her repatriation, she was to remain in jail custody, but was not to be treated as a convict.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.