Sentence of a first-time foreign offender may be reduced to custody undergone, followed by deportation.

On 6 October 2024, the appellant, a Bangladeshi national, was detained at Ambassa Railway Station during checking by railway police and BSF personnel after she and another woman allegedly failed to provide satisfactory explanations for their presence. Upon interrogation, they disclosed that they had entered India without valid travel documents, including a passport or visa. An FIR was registered, and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

She pleaded guilty to offences under Section 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(3) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, and declined trial. The Sessions Court convicted her and sentenced her to five years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 336(3) of the BNS, and two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 3(3) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act.

In appeal, the appellant sought reduction of sentence on the ground that she had already undergone substantial custody and had pleaded guilty; alternatively, she sought repatriation to Bangladesh. The State informed the Court that it had no objection to her being pushed back to Bangladesh instead of being kept in jail to serve the remaining sentence.

1. Whether, in view of the appellant’s guilty plea, period already undergone, absence of antecedents, and the State’s consent to repatriation, the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court should be reduced or modified.

2. 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 unauthorised entry into India and related conduct constituted punishable offences in the present case.

It also applied the sentencing principle that the punishment may be modified where the accused has pleaded guilty, has undergone a substantial period of custody, has no criminal antecedents, and mitigating circumstances justify a lenient view.

The Court further relied on the State Government’s administrative decision that it had no objection to the appellant’s repatriation to Bangladesh, permitting the remaining sentence to be waived subject to her push-back in accordance with law and procedure.

The appellant’s conviction was not challenged on merits because she had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charged offences and had declined trial. However, while considering the sentence, the Court took into account that the appellant had already remained in custody from the date of arrest, had no antecedents, and had committed what the Court regarded as a primary offence.

The Court also considered the State Government’s specific communication confirming that it had no objection to her repatriation to Bangladesh instead of retaining her in custody for the remaining sentence.

On these cumulative mitigating circumstances, the Court held that a lenient approach was warranted and modified the sentence to the period already undergone, while directing that the appellant be repatriated through the prescribed procedure.

The State was directed to take all necessary steps to push back the appellant 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.