[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib vs National Investigation Agency on 6 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
CRL.A No. 2004 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. AMOL CHANDRA DAS @ AMOL DAS @ SUJIB,
S/O LATE SUKUMAR CHANDRA DAS,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT SISHU MANDIR LANE,
VIVEKANANDA ROAD,
WARD NUMBER 26,
SILCHAR TOWN, CACHAR,
ASSAM - 788118.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
Digitally signed AS ALLEGED IN THE CHARGESHEET ALANGJURI,
by DEVIKA M ITNA POLILCE STATION LIMITS, KISHORGANJ,
Location: HIGH BANGLADESH - 2300.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINOD N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,
BENGALURU,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
CRL.A No. 2004 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4)
OF NIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.08.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPL.COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF THE
NIA CASES, CCH-50 IN SPL.C.NO.187/20242) AND TO
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT I.E ACCUSED NO.3 HEREIN IN
SPL.C.NO.187/2024 REGISTERED BY NIA FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 370(3), 120(B) OF IPC, ALONG
WITH SECTIONS 14, 14(A)(B), 14(C) OF THE FOREIGNERS ACT
AND SECTION 3 OF THE PASSPORT ENTRY IN TO INDIA ACT
1920 R/W RULE 6 OF THE PASSPORT RULES 1950, PENDING
BEFORE THE LEARNED XLIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, (SPL.COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF THE NIA CASES) IN
SPL.C.NO.187/2024.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed praying this Court to enlarge the
appellant i.e., accused No.3 on bail in connection with
Spl.C.No.187/2024 registered by National Investigation Agency
for the offences punishable under Sections 370(3) and 120B of
IPC along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B) and 14(C) of the
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
HC-KAR
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.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
this appellant is accused No.3 and earlier he had approached
the Trial Court for bail and the Trial Court rejected the same
and once again he approached the Trial Court and the Trial
Court again dismissed the same in coming to the conclusion
that this bail petition is successive bail petition and there has
been no change in the circumstances of the case. The learned
counsel submits that when this Court rejected the bail petition
of other accused, the Apex Court granted bail vide order dated
20.05.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.17376/2024.
The learned counsel also submits that the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 in Crl.A.No.325/2025
granted bail having referred the order passed by the Apex
Court in respect of accused No.6 is concerned, in coming to the
conclusion that the appellant is entitled for bail and hence, this
appellant is also entitled for bail. The learned counsel submits
that the offences invoked against the appellant are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/NIA
submits that detailed objection is filed and contend that this
appellant is a Bangladeshi and indulged in creation of
documents. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this
Court page No.26 of statement of objections and submits that
Aadhar card is created and the same is dated 18.12.2017. The
learned counsel also produced one more Aadhar card and the
same is also dated 18.12.2017, but address mentioned is
different; one is in Bangalore and another is in the respect of
Assam. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this
Court the insertion of photograph while getting the Aadhar
card. The learned counsel submits that there cannot be two
Aadhar cards issued at Karnataka and another at Assam on the
very same day. The learned counsel also submits that the
certificate of birth, which is produced as Annexure-R9 was
obtained and on verification, as per Annexure-R10, it is stated
that signature in the body of the birth certificate was not signed
by any doctors employed here and hence, it is clear that it was
a created document. The learned counsel also brought to the
notice of this Court page No.29 of the statement of objections
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
HC-KAR
i.e., travel details of accused person. In respect of this
appellant is concerned, he travelled frequently to Bangladesh
five times and remarks is very clear that he is a Bangladesh
national and he is having alliance with that country and also
proves his involvement in human trafficking. The learned
counsel bringing all these facts to the notice of this Court would
contend that the appellant is a foreign national and obtained
the passport by obtaining the birth certificate, which is a fake
document as well as Aadhar card and the same is also fake and
if the relief is granted, there are chances of fleeing away from
justice and hence, he is not entitled for bail.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent and considering the material on record and also the
offences which have been invoked against this appellant, no
doubt, the Trial Court while rejecting the application of the
appellant has taken note of that the bail application of other
accused persons was rejected, who are similarly placed.
However, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the
notice of this Court the order passed by the Apex Court in
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
HC-KAR
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.17376/2024, wherein the
Apex Court has taken note of that the petitioner is having a
business concern and employed several persons in his industrial
unit. When such being the case, in paragraph No.6 making an
observation, granted the relief and the same will not come to
the aid of the appellant. No doubt, the Division Bench of this
Court in Crl.A.No.325/2025, in paragraph No.6 taken note of
the order passed by the Apex Court. But while granting the
relief, in paragraph No.6 made an observation that according to
the prosecution itself, in the present case, the appellant is in
Bengaluru since 10 years and in waste segregation business by
setting up sheds and reasons are given while granting the
relief. But, in the case on hand, 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 and on perusal
of the same, it discloses insertion of photo and obtaining the
Aadhar Card and passport is also obtained based on those
documents and travelled five times to Bangladesh. Hence,
there is a force in the contention of the learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the respondent that, if relief is granted to the
NC: 2026:KHC:445-DB
HC-KAR
appellant, there are chances of fleeing away from justice.
When such being the case, the appellant has not made out any
ground to grant the relief. Hence, we do not find any ground to
grant the relief as sought. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
