Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed a bail appeal and declined to release an accused described by the National Investigation Agency as a Bangladeshi national in a human trafficking investigation. The Court held that the material on record did not justify bail, accepting the prosecution’s claim that the accused had procured Indian identity documents through fabrication, including an Aadhaar card, and used them to obtain a passport. The Bench also noted allegations that he travelled to Bangladesh on five occasions on that passport, raising concerns that he could evade the process of law if enlarged on bail.

The appeal arose from an order refusing bail to an accused in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency alleging offences relating to human trafficking, criminal conspiracy, violation of the Foreigners Act, and illegal entry into India under the Passport (Entry into India) Act. The appellant, arrayed as Accused No.3, sought enlargement on bail after his earlier applications were rejected by the trial court on the ground that there was no change in circumstances.

Also Read: Companies Act | Private Complaint Not Maintainable Against Fraud; Can Be Filed Only By SFIO Director Or Centre-Authorised Officer

The prosecution alleged that the appellant was a foreign national who had unlawfully entered India and procured identity documents, including Aadhaar cards and a passport, on the basis of fabricated records. It was alleged that two Aadhaar cards bearing different addresses were issued on the same date, and that the birth certificate relied upon for obtaining the passport was forged. The investigation material also referred to multiple instances of the appellant travelling to Bangladesh.

The appellant relied on orders granting bail to other accused persons, including an order of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the High Court in separate appeals, contending parity. The respondent agency opposed the appeal, asserting that the appellant’s status as a foreign national, coupled with the alleged fabrication of documents and travel history, created a serious risk of abscondence.

The Division Bench examined the rival submissions and the material placed on record. The Court recorded that “this appeal is filed praying this Court to enlarge the appellant i.e., accused No.3 on bail” in connection with the NIA case.

Referring to the appellant’s contention of parity, the Bench noted that reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s order granting bail to another accused, but observed that “the same will not come to the aid of the appellant.” The Court further referred to an earlier Division Bench order granting bail to a different accused and stated that the relief in that case was granted on specific factual considerations.

The Court then adverted to the prosecution material and recorded that “the appellant is a Bangladeshi national and the material available on record clearly discloses with regard to the alleged creation of document of Aadhar card on the same day at Karnataka as well as Assam.” It further noted that “on perusal of the same, it discloses insertion of photo and obtaining the Aadhar Card and passport is also obtained based on those documents.”

The Bench also took note of the travel details placed on record and observed that the appellant “travelled five times to Bangladesh.” On the apprehension expressed by the prosecution, the Court stated that “there is a force in the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent that, if relief is granted to the appellant, there are chances of fleeing away from justice.”

Also Read: Uncommunicated Adverse ACR Entries Can Be Considered For Compulsory Retirement: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Plea, Upholding Compulsory Retirement Order

Considering these aspects, the Court recorded that the appellant had not demonstrated any circumstance warranting a different view from the trial court’s order.

After considering the submissions and the material on record, the Division Bench concluded that “the appellant has not made out any ground to grant the relief. We do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought. The appeal is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Sri. Vinod N., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib v. National Investigation Agency
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:445-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2004 of 2025
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh, Justice Venkatesh Naik T