Bail may be denied if the accused is deemed a flight risk due to foreign nationality and the use of forged identity documents, regardless of bail granted to co-accused based on different circumstantial grounds.

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 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.

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 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 cou