In a significant procedural challenge involving allegations of human trafficking and forged identity documents, the Karnataka High Court stepped in to scrutinise whether an accused could claim parity in bail when the prosecution alleges he is a foreign national who fabricated official records to remain in India, raising serious concerns about flight risk and national security.
The controversy began with an appeal filed by Accused No. 3, seeking bail in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency under provisions of the IPC, the Foreigners Act, and the Passport (Entry into India) Act. Counsel for the appellant argued that his bail plea had been repeatedly rejected by the Trial Court merely as a “successive bail petition,” despite the fact that similarly placed co-accused had secured bail from the Apex Court and a Division Bench of the High Court. Stressing parity, the defence contended that the offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that previous judicial orders granting bail to other accused should operate in his favour.
The NIA, however, painted a starkly different picture. Opposing bail, the Special Public Prosecutor asserted that the appellant was a Bangladeshi national who had systematically created fake documents to establish an Indian identity. The prosecution pointed to two Aadhaar cards allegedly issued on the same day, one showing an address in Karnataka and the other in Assam, along with manipulated photographs.
A birth certificate relied upon by the accused was also flagged as forged, with verification revealing that the signatures on it were not of any authorised doctor. Adding to the suspicion, the NIA highlighted travel records showing that the appellant had travelled to Bangladesh five times, contending that these facts not only established foreign nationality but also indicated involvement in human trafficking and a real risk of absconding.
Weighing these rival claims, the Division Bench made it clear that bail orders granted to other accused could not be mechanically extended. The Court noted that while earlier bail had been granted by the Apex Court and by a coordinate Bench in different factual contexts, those observations would “not come to the aid of the appellant.”
Emphasising the material on record, the Bench observed that the case disclosed “the alleged creation of document of Aadhaar card on the same day at Karnataka as well as Assam,” and that the passport itself appeared to have been obtained on the strength of such documents. Finding substance in the prosecution’s apprehension, the Court concluded that “if relief is granted to the appellant, there are chances of fleeing away from justice.”
Consequently, holding that no ground for bail was made out, the appeal was dismissed.
Picture Source :
