In a significant order delivered on April 8, 2024, the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases), Bengaluru (CCH-50), presided over by Sri Gangadhara C.M., B.Com., LL.B., rejected the regular bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2860/2024. The court refused pre-trial release to seven foreign nationals accused of participating in an organized transnational human trafficking network.

Case Overview and Prosecution Allegations

The case originated from intelligence gathered by the Central Government regarding an organized transnational crime network operating across the Indo-Bangladesh border. The network allegedly trafficked illegal immigrants—specifically Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingya individuals—into India, facilitated their transit to states such as Karnataka, Assam, Tripura, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh, provided fraudulent Indian identification documents, and subjected victims to forced labor under oppressive conditions.

Following directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs (Order F.No.11011/91/2023/NIA dated November 7, 2023), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered case R.C.No.01/2023/NIA/BLR.

Upon completing the investigation, the NIA submitted a comprehensive charge-sheet before the Special Court, resulting in the registration of Spl.C.No.187/2024 for offences under:

• Sections 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) and 370(3) (Trafficking of Persons) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Sections 14, 14-A(b), and 14-C of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• 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 network trafficked at least 22 Bangladeshi nationals into India on the false promise of legitimate employment, forcibly confined them in waste segregation sheds and godowns in Bengaluru, paid nominal wages, and threatened to expose them to local police if they attempted to leave.

Status of Applicants

The bail petition initially involved twelve petitioners. On March 28, 2024, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with respect to Petitioner Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 10 following a memo filed by defence counsel.

The Special Court adjudicated the bail plea for the remaining seven applicants:

• Petitioner No. 1: Firdoush @ Md Ferdous Bapari @ Firdous (Residing in Bellandur, Bengaluru; Permanent resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 2: Muhammed Oli Ullah (Residing in Frazer Town, Bengaluru; Permanent resident of Khulna Division, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 3: Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib (Residing in Cachar, Assam; Permanent resident of Kishorganj, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 4: Masud Sarder @ Masud @ Masud Abdul (Residing in Mallasandra, Bengaluru North; Permanent resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 5: Md. Sohag Gazi @ Sauhag (Residing in Dadri, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh; Permanent resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 9: Zakir Khan @ Md. Zakir Talukder (Residing in Begur, Bengaluru; Permanent resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 11: Md. Kabir Talukder @ Kobir (Residing in Begur, Bengaluru; Permanent resident of Bagerhat, Bangladesh).
• Petitioner No. 12: Md. Bacchu Gharami / Mohammed Bashir Hosen (Residing in Alahalli, Bengaluru; Permanent resident of Khulna, Bangladesh).

Key Judicial Findings & Reasons for Rejection

Evaluating the bail petition against established principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India—specifically in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1]—Special Judge Gangadhara C.M. concluded that no discretionary relief could be extended:

1. Prima Facie Material on Foreign Nationality and Unlawful Entry:
   • Search operations conducted at the residences of the accused yielded Bangladeshi passports, official identity documents, birth certificates issued in Bangladesh, and Bangladeshi currency.
   • The court noted that the applicants explicitly stated in their own court filings that their permanent addresses were located in Bangladesh, while failing to produce any valid visas, passports, or legal entry permits authorizing their presence in India.
2. Fraudulent Acquisition of Indian Identity Documents:
   • Case records and seized materials demonstrated that the accused fraudulently obtained official Indian identity cards (including PAN cards, Voter ID cards, Ration cards, and other government-issued credentials) for themselves and their family members to conceal their foreign nationality and blend into local communities.
3. Organized Exploitation and Witness Intimidation:
   • Statements recorded from multiple victim-witnesses detailed how the accused collected funds in Bangladesh, facilitated illegal border crossings near Benapole, transported victims to Bengaluru, confined them to waste segregation facilities, and exploited them for forced labor under threat of arrest.
   • The court observed that because the primary prosecution witnesses were vulnerable victims previously under the control of the accused, releasing the petitioners on bail created a clear and unacceptable risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering.
4. Severe Flight Risk:
   • Given their foreign citizenship and unlawful entry, the court held that the risk of the petitioners absconding across international borders to evade trial was extraordinarily high.

Final Order

The NIA Special Court formally rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, 9, 11, and 12.