[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerri Jayne Budd vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2026
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
B.A.No.1314/2026
1
2026:KER:30290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
BAIL APPL. NO. 1314 OF 2026
CRIME NO.734/2025 OF Arthungal Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2025 IN CMP NO.3952 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KERRI JAYNE BUDD, AGED 35 YEARS , D/O PAUL BUDD,
4 SECOND AVENUE, CLENELG EAST, SOUTH AUSTRALIA,
PIN - 504500
BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
*ADDL R2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREIGNERS
REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, KOCHI
IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND
RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 11/3/26.
BY ADV O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1314/2026
2
2026:KER:30290
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS),
seeking regular bail.
2. The applicant is a foreign national. She is the sole
accused in Crime No.734/2025 of Arthunkal Police Station,
Alappuzha District. The offence alleged is punishable under
Section 23(b) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (for
short, the Act).
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in
contravention of the provisions of the Act, the applicant resided
in Puliyamkottu House, Cherthala, without any permit from the
Government of India, even after receiving a "Leave India" notice
from the FRO and being served with an exit permit requiring
departure before 5.11.2025. The applicant failed to comply with
the directions to leave India as per the order issued by the
Bureau of Immigration on 29.9.2025 and thereby committed the
offence.
4. I have heard Sri.Santhosh Kumar T.P., the learned
counsel for the applicant, Smt.O.M.Shalina, the learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India for the additional respondent No.2 and
Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused
2026:KER:30290
the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted
that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the
alleged crime; hence, she is entitled to bail. On the other hand,
the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged
incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the
applicant, and she is not entitled to bail at this stage.
6. The applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025 and
since then she is in judicial custody. The applicant is a foreign
national. The applicant arrived in India on 6.4.2025 on the
strength of an e-Tourist visa (No.901099D0P) valid up to
27.3.2026. The allegation against the applicant is that she
stayed beyond the permissible period of 90 days. However, on
25.8.2025, she applied for extension of visa on the ground that
she intended to marry one Mr. Ramesh P.M. It was during the
pendency of her application for extension of visa, she was
arrested. The investigation is almost over. The applicant is a
pregnant woman. She has no criminal antecedents. Therefore,
I am of the view that her further detention is not necessary.
7. Under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946,
the Central Government is empowered to issue an order making
2026:KER:30290
provisions either generally or concerning any particular foreigner
or class of foreigners, prohibiting, regulating or restricting the
entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or
their presence or continued presence. Under clause (g) of
Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, a power has been conferred
on the Central Government to issue an order directing that a
foreigner shall be arrested and detained or confined. In exercise
of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act,
1946, the Foreigners Order, 1948 has been issued. Clause 2(2)
of the Order provides for appointing a Civil Authority by the
Central Government. Clause 5 of the Order deals with the power
to grant permission to depart from India. As per Clause 5(1)(b)
of the Order, no foreigner shall leave India without the leave of
the Civil Authority having jurisdiction. As per Clause 5(2)(b) of
the Order, the foreigner's presence is required in India to
answer a criminal charge and permission to leave India must be
refused. Therefore, once a foreigner is released on bail, he/she
cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority,
as provided in Clause 5 of the Order. Under Clause 11 of the
Order, the Civil Authority can impose restrictions on the
movements of a foreigner. The said power is wholly independent
of the power to grant bail. Notwithstanding the bail granted by
a criminal court, the power to arrest and detain a foreigner can
2026:KER:30290
be exercised, provided the Central Government makes an order
in terms of clause (g) of Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act.
8. The Supreme Court in Frank Vitus v.
Narcotics Control Bureau (AIR 2025 SC 546), held that while
releasing a foreigner on bail, the court should direct the
Investigating Agency or the State, as the case may be, to
immediately inform the Registration Officer concerned appointed
under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992,
about the grant of bail so that the Registration Officer can bring
the fact of the grant of bail to the notice of the Civil Authority
concerned. It was further held that if such information was
furnished, it would enable the authorities under the Act, the
Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance
with law. This Court also recently in Apple Barua v. State of
Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1359] took the same view. The
Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Kochi, has
already been impleaded as additional respondent No.2.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following
conditions: -
(I) The applicant is granted bail on executing a
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.
2026:KER:30290
(ii) The respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law, after hearing the applicant or her
counsel, within a period of one month. The applicant shall be
released only subject to the orders passed by the respondent
No.2.
(iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a
like nature while on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any
of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other
person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or
influence any witnesses or other persons related to the
investigation.
(v) The applicant shall not leave India without the
permission of the trial Court.
(vi) The application if any, for deletion/modification
of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of
violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional
court.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2026:KER:30290
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 1314 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2025
OF THE HON'BLE JFCM-II, CHERTHALA IN
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) A true copy of the report dated
18.09.2025 issued by the District
Police Chief, Alappuzha
Annexure R2(b) A true copy of the judgment dated
06.01.2025 of the Supreme Court in
Crl.Appl. No. 2814-2815 of 2024
