Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To French Refugee Arrested While Crossing India-Bangladesh Border
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a French passport holder with refugee status in France, who was arrested while allegedly crossing the India-Bangladesh border without valid documents, observing that there was no need for further custodial interrogation after the investigation had concluded and a chargesheet had been filed.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) granted bail to Rocky Francis D'costa, who was booked under Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court noted that he had no other criminal antecedents and had produced documents showing his French refugee status and valid French passport.
The Court also took note of the fact that D'costa's mother had been undergoing medical treatment in India since 2022. A report submitted pursuant to an earlier direction confirmed that the medical treatment records obtained from Apollo Multi Specialty Hospital were genuine.
“The sum and substance found is that a person holding valid document from the France and a valid passport issued by Republic of France ... got arrested for not having valid document while crossing India Bangladesh border,” the Court observed.
The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that D'costa had been apprehended while crossing the border from India to Bangladesh and had failed to produce cogent documents. However, the seizure list showed that his French passport, valid from August 5, 2023, to August 4, 2028, and a Bangladesh national identity document had been seized.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors., 2026 INSC 870, which reiterated that foreign nationals are entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution and that their foreign nationality alone cannot be a ground to restrict their right to bail.
The Supreme Court had held that while the State has the sovereign power to regulate, restrict and expel foreign nationals, bail conditions imposed on them must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of compliance.
“Merely because an accused/convict is a foreigner, the right to bail cannot be circumscribed,” the Supreme Court had observed.
Applying these principles, the High Court held that, considering the absence of criminal antecedents, the completion of the investigation and the medical treatment of the petitioner's mother in India, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The Court accordingly allowed the bail application and directed D'costa's release on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be a local resident.
The Court imposed additional conditions in line with the Supreme Court's directions concerning foreign nationals accused of offences.
D'costa was directed to register with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office within one to two weeks of his release and inform the investigating officer and the concerned court in writing. The authorities were directed to verify the sureties within three to five days and physically re-verify the petitioner's residential address and contact details within three days of the bail order, before his release.
He was also required to file an affidavit disclosing his source of income and funds in India and details of any bank accounts held in the country. The investigating officer was directed to inform the embassy of the petitioner's country of origin about the alleged offence and the bail order.
The Court further directed that a lien or charge equivalent to the surety bond amount be created on the property of any person standing surety for the foreign national. In the event of a violation of the bail conditions, the concerned court could direct realisation of the lien, and the bail order would be treated as cancelled.
Case: Rocky Francis D'costa v. State, CRM (M) No. 2447 of 2026