Jalil Akhtar spent 87 days in custody. Who answers for them?

For 87 days, 70-year-old Jalil Akhtar was detained on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national.

On Monday, 14 September, an Islampur court granted him bail after the prosecution failed to produce conclusive evidence establishing that he was a Bangladeshi citizen.

The order has freed Akhtar, but it leaves unanswered questions about how an elderly daily-wage worker came to spend nearly three months in detention despite documentary records indicating that he was an Indian citizen.

The court noted that police verification had found details of Akhtar’s electoral photo identity card on the Election Commission’s ERONET portal and in the 2026 electoral roll, National Herald reported. His Aadhaar and ration-card records were also found to be valid.

His lawyers produced further evidence showing that Akhtar’s name had appeared on electoral rolls as far back as 1995, including the 2002 and 2026 rolls.

The state opposed his bail, arguing that his release could potentially pose a threat to national security. The court nevertheless granted bail on a Rs 10,000 bond, citing his age, lack of criminal antecedents and the documentary and electoral records available in the case.

From police custody to the border

The circumstances surrounding Akhtar’s detention were first reported in detail by the Bangla webzine Guruchandali.

According to its report, police picked up Akhtar, a daily-wage worker from Bagrai village in Uttar Dinajpur district, in June on suspicion that he was a Bangladeshi national.

His family maintained that he had never been to Bangladesh and repeatedly submitted documents to establish his Indian identity.

Akhtar was subsequently moved through detention facilities in Fulbari and Chakulia before being produced before an Islampur court. Police alleged that he was from Haripur in Bangladesh’s Thakurgaon district.

According to Guruchandali, the case then moved through successive court dates while the promised verification remained unresolved.

At one point, Akhtar was taken to the border on more than one occasion in an apparent attempt to deport him. The process could not be completed because he continued to claim that he was an Indian citizen and refused to accept deportation to Bangladesh, a country he said he had never lived in.

The Border Security Force eventually returned him to the authorities.

The sequence highlights the gap between suspicion and proof. Authorities had begun proceedings on the premise that Akhtar was a foreign national, yet the process of establishing that identity did not produce the conclusive evidence required to keep him in custody.

What happens after release?

The court’s bail order does not settle every question concerning Akhtar’s nationality. Nor does it amount to a finding that the authorities acted unlawfully at every stage of the process.

But it does show that, at the point when bail was granted, the prosecution had not produced conclusive material establishing that Akhtar was a Bangladeshi national. At the same time, police verification had confirmed the validity of several Indian government records linked to him.

That raises a broader question: what remedy is available when a person spends months in detention while authorities attempt to establish that he is a foreign national, but the evidence does not ultimately support that conclusion?

Bail addresses the question of liberty from that point forward. It does not restore the 87 days Akhtar spent in detention.

Nor does it answer whether there should be an independent review of how his detention occurred, why documentary evidence produced by his family did not result in his earlier release, or whether those responsible should face any consequences if the allegations against him are ultimately found to be unfounded.

A sensitive border environment

Akhtar’s case also comes as India and Bangladesh continue to navigate tensions over their 4,100-km border.

The two countries have been seeking to repair relations following the political upheaval in Bangladesh in August 2024. At the same time, disagreements have intensified over alleged “push-ins”, in which people are reportedly forced or attempted to be forced across the border without completion of nationality-verification procedures.

Bangladesh has alleged that some of those pushed towards its territory were Indian citizens. India has maintained that suspected Bangladeshi nationals are dealt with through established verification mechanisms.

The competing claims have added to existing tensions between the two neighbours.

Against that backdrop, Akhtar’s case illustrates why nationality determinations carry consequences far beyond administrative procedure.

States have the right to identify and deport foreign nationals who are unlawfully present on their territory. But determining nationality requires evidence, particularly when the consequence of an incorrect determination can be detention, separation from family and attempted removal across an international border.

For Akhtar, the immediate issue is settled only to the extent that he has been released on bail.