Seema Haider grabbed headlines after she was arrested on July 4, for illegally entering India. She was later released on bail on July 7. The Pakistani woman had entered India via Nepal around a month ago with her four children to be with her lover, Sachin Meena, in Uttar Pradesh’s Greater Noida.
Seema Haider was arrested on July 4 from Palwal in Haryana by Noida Police in Uttar Pradesh. The Uttar Pradesh police had also registered an FIR against Seema Haider’s boyfriend Sachin and Sachin’s father Netrapal under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for conspiracy.
Due to the sensitivity of the situation, when Seema Haider was taken into custody by the police, it was anticipated that both she and her lover would spend a significant amount of time behind bars. But it turned out that none of these theories were accurate. In just 3 days, the Pakistani woman along with her lover were granted bail by a Noida court.
According to the details received by OpIndia from reliable sources, the Uttar Pradesh government has taken cognizance of the matter. The government has asked the Noida police to explain how Seema Haider received bail so fast and effortlessly. The Noida administration has submitted a report to the government regarding this entire situation.
Why was Seema Haider released within three days?
The Seema Haider case was heard in Judicial Magistrate Nazim Akbar’s court. On two local sureties totalling Rs 30,000 each, Magistrate Nazim granted bail to Seema. Along with Seema, Sachin and Netrapal were also granted bail by Judicial Magistrate Nazim Akbar.
The terms of bail, according to the information OpIndia got, include not leaving the country and current address without authorization and refraining from committing any crimes in the future.
Reportedly, the person acting as bailiff for Seema is well-known and close to her boyfriend Sachin Meena. It has also come to the fore in our investigation that Magistrate Nazim Akbar did not seek a counter from the police before releasing Seema Haider on bail. Additionally, the sureties were not verified by the police before the accused were released.
If one sees the FIR filed in Seema Haider’s case, one would see that the police itself is the complainant in the case. The FIR names SHO Rabupura Inspector Sudhir Kumar as the plaintiff. According to the latest information, this case has now been sent to the Jewar police station and the SHO has been tasked with conducting a detailed and fair probe into it.
A female constable has also been assigned to argue the matter in court. Higher officials and the Uttar Pradesh government have been apprised of all the developments in this matter since it first began.
What is the difference between Seema Haider and Nigerians living illegally?
When we compare the Seema Haider case with other similar cases, this case stands out from the rest. On June 3, twenty-three foreign nationals, including eight women from Nigeria, were arrested from Uttar Pradesh’s Gautam Buddh Nagar district for allegedly staying illegally in India. They were all essentially Nigerian citizens residing illegally, without proper documentation in Noida.
All of these Nigerians were subjected to the same provisions of Section 14 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 as Seema Haider. Along with section 7 of the Criminal Act, the IPC 332, 353 and 147 were also applied to the African nationals. Meanwhile, in Seema Haider’s case, she was also charged with conspiracy under Section 120B of the Foreigners Act.
It is noteworthy that all those Nigerians had been detained for almost one and a half months. In this case, the lower court summoned the investigating officer for the Nigerians’ bail hearings; but, in Seema Haider’s case, Magistrate Nazim Akbar granted her bail in just three days, and that too without calling the police to appear before the court.
Both the FIRs pertaining to Seema Haider and the Nigerians are in the possession of OpIndia.
Notably, a person will be arrested in accordance with 41(1) clause (a) if they commit a cognizable offence in police presence. While making the arrest, the police do not consider the extent of punishment that would be granted to the accused. However, in the case of the Nigerians, Section 332 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty) had been invoked so it is plausible that the cops were assaulted in the case. Since Section 332 of the IPC is a non-bailable offence, Nigerians are still in jail.
What do the police and lawyers think about the Seema Haider case?
When OpIndia called Supreme Court attorney Prashant Patel to get the legal perspective on the situation, he said that while it is the police’s responsibility to bring an accused person before the court as required by law, the court ultimately determines whether to free or imprison him.
OpIndia also spoke to retired deputy SPs of Uttar Pradesh Police, Vivekanand Tiwari and Avneesh Gautam in this matter.
Vivekanand Tiwari told us that until there is a permanent solution to the Seema Haider issue at the government level, it is not in the interest of the country for her to roam freely. Vivekanand Tiwari also said that the bail granted to Seema Haider should be challenged by the police in the higher court. Not considering Seema Haider’s marriage in Nepal as valid in India, Vivekanand Tiwari told that the intelligence department of the police will have to be extra vigilant in this matter.
At the same time, former Deputy SP Avneesh Gautam stressed the need to further strengthen India’s Foreign Act law, describing it as very weak. Avneesh Gautam also said that in such cases the government has to reach one of the two options. In this, the first option is to return Seema Haider to her country and the second option, if this is not possible, is to give her Indian citizenship.
