Judgment : 1. Petitioner is the accused in crime 1454/2013 of Aluva East Police Station registered for offences punishable under sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Passport Act. He has filed the above application seeking his release on bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code. 2. Petitioner who is alleged to be a Bangladesh citizen was arrested on 29-4-2013 when he was found residing in a house at Aluva without any valid passport or travel document authorising his entry and stay in the country. On production before the magistrate he was remanded to judicial custody which still continues. His application for bail contending that he is a citizen of India producing some documents was turned down by the magistrate and also by the Sessions Judge. His request for bail before this court was also declined vide Annexure A7 order dated 6.6.2013. He has moved again the present application after span of one month seeking his release on bail. Copies of some documents are also produced as annexures to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian citizen. 3. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned public prosecutor. No change of circumstance after dismissal of previous application by this Court has been canvassed, but only reiterating of the contentions advanced earlier that petitioner is a citizen of India and not of Bangladesh and the proceedings launched against him under the Foreigners Act and Passport Act are per se unsustainable. Application is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor contending that no reliance can be placed on any of the documents tendered by petitioner to accept his case that he is a citizen of India when such documents are incapable of showing his status as such. Investigation of the crime is still continuing, and,where he has failed to show even prima facie that he is an Indian citizen and not a citizen of Bangladesh as imputed, he cannot be granted bail at this stage, is the submission of learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Petitioner produced photostat copies of some documents as Annexure 2 to 6 to reinforce his claim as an Indian citizen. Except Annexure A4 which is dated 24.4.2013 the rest of the documents referred to above are seen obtained after he was taken into custody in the case. 4. Petitioner produced photostat copies of some documents as Annexure 2 to 6 to reinforce his claim as an Indian citizen. Except Annexure A4 which is dated 24.4.2013 the rest of the documents referred to above are seen obtained after he was taken into custody in the case. Annexure 2 is the certificate issued by a Prodhan of Grama Panchayat in West Bengal stating that petitioner is known to him. Various particulars to be filled up in the form under that certificate as to his income, voter's name as enlisted in the registers to be maintained, ration card number etc remain blank with no entry made. Annexure 3 dated 30.4.2013 is another certificate issued by the above Prodhan of the Panchayat. That certificate indicates that the person shown as father of the applicant has an voter card and is personally known to him. Annexure 3 certificate is issued in favour of the wife of petitioner by Prodhan of Panchayat, and she is shown to be having a ration card. Annexure 5 is a certificate issued by a member of the legislative assembly and Annexure 6 a certificate by a member of Parliament, both stating that petitioner is an Indian citizen by birth. The aforesaid certificates produced are hardly sufficient to accept claim of petitioner as an Indian citizen was the view formed by the Sessions Judge who turned down his application for bail under Annexure 1 order. After looking into the documents referred to above I find that no different conclusion can be taken when such documents are incapable of even showing, prima facie, the status of petitioner as an Indian citizen. I refrain from expressing any opinion on the value and merit of the documents since they may have supporting value if petitioner at a later stage is able to produce any acceptable document showing at least prima facie his status as an Indian citizen as claimed. However, it is to be stated on the documents produced, which are totally incapable of even showing prima facie his status of Indian citizen his claim as such cannot be accepted. 5. However, it is to be stated on the documents produced, which are totally incapable of even showing prima facie his status of Indian citizen his claim as such cannot be accepted. 5. Where petitioner is proceeded under the Foreigners Act and Passport Act and he has failed to show even prima facie sustainability of the challenge raised that he is a citizen of India, to seek his release on bail, the question emerge for consideration whether discretion of this court can be exercised to extend him such relief while the investigation of the crime is in progress. Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act defines a 'foreigner' as 'a person who is not a citizen of India.' Any such person who remains in any area in India without valid visa or permit in contravention of the provisions of the Act is liable to be penalised with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also liable to fine, under section 14 of the Act. When a criminal proceeding is launched under the Foreigners Act against a person except to one whose determination of nationality falls under section 8 of the Act all questions relating thereto with reference to the applicability of the provisions of the Act or Orders thereunder whether such person is a foreigner or not, the onus of establishing that he is not a foreigner is on the person proceeded against notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act. Burden of proof to establish that he is not a foreigner and thus not liable to be proceeded against under the Act in the event of such a proceeding launched rests on the person proceeded against, is the mandate under section 9 of the Act. That section reads thus:-"9. Burden of proof to establish that he is not a foreigner and thus not liable to be proceeded against under the Act in the event of such a proceeding launched rests on the person proceeded against, is the mandate under section 9 of the Act. That section reads thus:-"9. Burden of proof-- If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(1 of 1872), lie upon such person." Such a mandatory prescription casting the burden of proof on the petitioner in the proceedings cannot be brushed aside or ignored as if it arises for consideration only in trial if at all any indictment is made under the Act. Even in considering the release of a person on bail at the stage of investigation as well that is applicable when a person is proceeded as a 'foreigner' and alleged of committing an offence under the Act. That is all the more so since releasing such a person, who is proceeded as a foreigner, on bail, without even prima facie satisfaction that he is a citizen of India, or in a case where he is not having valid visa or permit to remain in country outside the jail, would itself amount to infringement of the provisions of the Act every moment he remains outside as a free bird in the country without authority or permission to do so. A criminal court is not empowered by passing an order of bail in favour of a person proceeded under the Act, to confer on him authority or permission to remain in the country so long as the proceeding continued, without permission granted to him to do so by the competent authority, the Central Government. A criminal court is not empowered by passing an order of bail in favour of a person proceeded under the Act, to confer on him authority or permission to remain in the country so long as the proceeding continued, without permission granted to him to do so by the competent authority, the Central Government. Otherwise any foreigner coming to this country violating the provisions of the Act, or after entry remaining in the country flouting the provisions of the Act or Orders thereunder, and thereupon proceeded against for such violation,by getting an order of bail in such proceedings can easily flout and transgress the mandatory prescriptions under the Act. In a case where a foreigner proceeded for overstay of the visa period or entry into the country without valid visa, unless permission is given by the Central Government for him to remain in the country at least temporarily, releasing him on bail is not permissible. In case any temporary permission is given for stay, then also such bail has to confine for such period alone,provided he is entitled to bail and that too imposing adequate conditions securing his presence for investigation/ trial. Granting bail to a person proceeded as foreigner under the Act in the absence of the court forming satisfaction he is not a 'foreigner' or that he has not committed the offences under the Act suspected of, is fraught with serious consequences since the remaining of such a person outside the jail as a free bird under orders of bail granted, and each and every moment thereof, that by itself would amount to commission of offences under the Act, that too with the aid of the orders passed by the court. Such being the situation in a case arising in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act the court and the investigating agency, both of them, are not only expected to but bound to see that the criminal proceedings launched with reference to the Foreigners Act should be completed expeditiously, which if not followed would result incarceration of the person proceeded against indefinitely and, thus, resulting in gross injustice. 6. Petitioner since his arrest on 29.4.2013 continues in custody. Expeditious completion of investigation of the crime proceeded against him is called for to meet the ends of justice. 6. Petitioner since his arrest on 29.4.2013 continues in custody. Expeditious completion of investigation of the crime proceeded against him is called for to meet the ends of justice. In a proceeding initiated under the Foreigners Act it may not be possible for the investigating agency to examine the veracity of each and every document produced by a person proceeded against claiming the status as a citizen of India . More so, when any meaningful inquiry thereof is possible only by going over to distant and far off places, whether it be in the country or outside. Where the statute casts a burden on the person proceeded against imputing him as a foreigner if the investigating agency is satisfied that he is a foreigner and liable to be proceeded against, then there could be no reason for not completing the investigation expeditiously, and it cannot be carried on indefinitely solely for the reason the person proceeded against has tendered one or other document setting forth a defence that he is not a foreigner. Of course, if the investigating agency finds that document produced has prima facie value then it has to probe further, but, even in such cases also there cannot be delay in completing the investigation. A copy of the order shall be given to the Director General of Prosecution who shall take necessary steps and issue appropriate instructions to see that investigation of crimes registered under the Foreigners Act against any person proceeded as a foreigner is completed at the earliest and the person proceeded against does not suffer incarceration beyond reasonable period in the pretrial stage. 7. After completion of investigation, and, in case indictment is made against foreigner for any offence under the Foreigners Act and he continues under incarceration, then, the court has to give top priority for expeditious trial and disposal of the case. Petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage, and his request for bail is declined. Petition is disposed with directions/observations as made above.