Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib v. National Investigation Agency, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5, dealt with a serious case involving allegations of human trafficking, use of forged identity documents, and illegal cross-border movement. The appeal before the Court arose from an order refusing bail to the appellant, who was accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of being a Bangladeshi national illegally residing in India and operating with fabricated Indian identity documents. The appellant was charged under Sections 370(3) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B), and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act, and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950. The prosecution alleged that the accused had fraudulently obtained an Aadhaar card and passport using forged documents and had travelled to Bangladesh on multiple occasions, thereby establishing strong links with a foreign country. A Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was called upon to examine whether, in light of these allegations and materials on record, the appellant was entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. The case raised significant issues relating to national security, misuse of identity documents, illegal migration, and the risk of absconding in cases involving foreign nationals accused of serious offences.
Arguments:
On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that continued incarceration without trial would violate his personal liberty. It was contended that mere allegations of fabrication of documents could not be treated as conclusive proof at the stage of bail and that the prosecution’s case was based largely on assumptions rather than established facts. The appellant claimed Indian residence and relied upon documents such as an Aadhaar card and a birth certificate to assert his identity. It was argued that discrepancies, if any, in documentation should be tested during trial and not used as a ground to deny bail altogether. The defence also submitted that the offences alleged, though serious, were triable and that the accused was willing to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. Emphasis was placed on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that pre-trial detention should not be punitive in nature.
Opposing the appeal, Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar appearing for the National Investigation Agency submitted that the case involved grave offences affecting national interest and internal security. He argued that the Aadhaar card relied upon by the appellant was fabricated and produced before the Court two Aadhaar cards issued on the same date, namely 18.12.2017, one showing an address in Karnataka and another in Assam. It was strongly contended that it was impossible for two Aadhaar cards to be issued on the same day in two different States, thereby clearly demonstrating fabrication and impersonation. The prosecution further submitted that the photograph had been deliberately inserted to create a false identity.
The Special Public Prosecutor also referred to the birth certificate produced by the appellant and stated that on verification, the signature appearing on the document was not that of any registered medical practitioner, indicating that the certificate was also forged. He pointed out that the passport was obtained on the basis of these fabricated documents, enabling the accused to travel to Bangladesh on five occasions. According to the NIA, these repeated visits clearly established that the appellant was a Bangladeshi national with strong links to that country and that his activities were connected to human trafficking operations. It was further argued that if bail were granted, there was a high likelihood of the accused fleeing the country, making it impossible to secure his presence for trial. The prosecution therefore submitted that the appellant did not deserve the discretionary relief of bail, particularly in view of the seriousness of the offences and the strong prima facie evidence against him.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully examining the material placed on record and hearing the submissions of both sides, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court declined to grant bail to the appellant. The Court noted that the documents produced by the accused raised serious doubts about their authenticity. It specifically observed that the presence of two Aadhaar cards issued on the same date with different addresses in two different States clearly indicated fabrication. The Court also took note of the prosecution’s contention that the photograph had been inserted while obtaining the Aadhaar cards and that the passport was procured on the strength of these forged documents.
The Bench further observed that the appellant had travelled to Bangladesh on five occasions, which strongly supported the prosecution’s claim that he was a Bangladeshi national. The Court held that such frequent international travel, particularly to the country of alleged origin, demonstrated strong foreign links and significantly increased the risk of the accused absconding if released on bail. The Court found merit in the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor that granting bail in such circumstances could enable the appellant to flee from justice, thereby frustrating the trial process.
In its reasoning, the Court emphasized that while the right to personal liberty is fundamental, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of society and the administration of justice. In cases involving serious offences such as human trafficking, coupled with allegations of forged identity documents and illegal cross-border movement, the threshold for granting bail is necessarily higher. The Court concluded that the material on record prima facie established the appellant’s involvement and that no exceptional grounds were made out to justify his release on bail. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the refusal of bail was upheld, reinforcing the principle that courts must exercise caution in granting bail where there is a real and substantial risk of the accused evading the legal process.