Whether court should grant bail to a foreign national, who is unable to furnish local surety?

 In LachhmanDass v. Resham Chand Kaler, (2018) 3 SCC 187, (Para 10), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law under section 439CrPC is very clear and in the eye of the law every accused is the same irrespective of their nationality.{Para 11}

15. In Shokhista v. State, 2005 LawSuit (Del) 1316, Delhi High Court observed,

5. …The accused is a foreign national and is not able to furnish a local surety. The same does not debar her from being admitted to bail. The provision of local surety is nowhere mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure and surety can be from any part of the country or without. In the present case, since the accused is a foreign national and is facing investigation under Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the I.T.P. Act and in view of the fact that the Petitioner is ready and willing to make a deposit in cash in lieu of the surety in addition to a personal bond, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in permitting her to do so. Consequently, I admit the Petitioner to bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a cash deposit of the like amount in lieu of the surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court and shall deposit her pass-port with the trial court.

16. Given the above reasoning, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

 In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Anoop Chitkara, J.)

Collins Vs  State of H.P.

Cr.M.P. (M) No. 254 of 2021

Decided on April 27, 2021,

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine HP 787

Print Page

Whether there is impediment for an Indian citizen to marry a foreign national?

Identical cases have come up before this Court

earlier, wherein, this Court has taken the view that there is no

impediment for an Indian citizen to marry a foreign national

under the Special Marriage Act. The judgment rendered by this

Court in WP(C) No.29378 of 2015 is one of such cases. In the

light of the judgment in the said case and other cases, I deem it

appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as follows:

         i. The respondent shall receive notice of marriage


            under the Special Marriage Act from the petitioners.

        ii. The date of notice has to be reckoned as today.

        iii.The marriage shall be registered on the expiry of 30

            days from today in accordance with the provisions of

            the Special Marriage Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

               TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016

                                WP(C).No. 19506 of 2016 (K)
                        
               TONY JAMES,
                    Vs

                THE SUB REGISTRAR & MARRIAGE OFFICER,
                     (UNDER THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT),
       
      

Print Page