The court granted bail to a foreign national on the grounds that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, there were no criminal antecedents, and the seizure of his passport eliminated the risk of fleeing the country.

CAV ORDER

1. This petition is filed by accused No. 1 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C. No. 42/2025 (Crime No. 199/2024 of Bajpe Police Station) registered for offences punishable under Section 319 , 336(3), 340 of BNS and Section 12-1A(a)(b) of Passport Act and Section 14-A and 14-B of Foreigners Act pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The maximum sentence provided for offence alleged against the petitioner is imprisonment which may extend to 8 years. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.10.2024 and as chargesheet is filed he is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner who has been served with notice under Section 35(1) of BNSS has been arrested without adhering to the terms of the notice on the same day of the notice. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been granted bail. Accused No. 3 had filed a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings against him and the proceedings against him are stayed by this Court. The grounds of arrest are not furnished to the petitioner. Petitioner does not understand Kannada language as he is a citizen of Bangladesh. On the point that the grounds of arrest are not furnished learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on the following decisions.

a) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269

b) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State fo Maharashtra and another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356

c) Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another , 2025 SCC OnLine 1228

4. Petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case. The passport of the petitioner has already been seized and there is no threat of petitioner fleeing away from the country. With this learned counsel for petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.

5. per contra learned HCGP would contend that the petitioner has been arrested by Immigration Officer at airport when he was trying to fly to Dubai by creating an Indian passport with fake document, namely, Aadhar card. C.W.9 and C.W.10 have been shown as parents of petitioner in the Aadhar card but they are not the parents as per statements of C.W.9 and C.W.10. Petitioner has created Aadhar with the help of other accused persons. Petitioner is not an Indian citizen. If the petitioner is granted bail there are chances of he fleeing from country and not available for trial. On these grounds he prayed to reject the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

7. A perusal of the records indicate that the petitioner has not been furnished the grounds of arrest as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner.

8. As per charge sheet the case of the prosecution is that petitioner is a resident of Bangladesh, crossed border, came to India in the year 2017, created Aadhar card showing the names of C.W.9 and C.W.10 as his parents and obtained Indian passport. Petitioner was caught by Immigration Officer at Mangaluru airport when he intended to travel to Dubai. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Maximum sentence that can be imposed for offences alleged against the petitioner is imprisonment which may extend to 8 years. Petitioner is in judicial custody s