Karnataka HC Dismisses Bail of Bangladesh National Who Introduced Illegal Immigrants for Fake Aadhaar and PAN Cards

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed bail for Sidul Mandal, a Bangladesh national charged with facilitating fake identity documents for illegal immigrants, observing the conduct prima facie endangers national sovereignty.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 28 July 2026 dismissed the regular bail application of Sidul Mandal, a 46-year-old Bangladesh national, who is Accused No. 2 in a case arising from a raid at a Cyber Centre in Bengaluru. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, sitting singly, found that the charge sheet material prima facie showed Mandal had introduced illegal immigrants from Bangladesh to a co-accused who fabricated Aadhaar and PAN card documents for them. The court went further and observed that the Investigation Officer had erred by not invoking Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — the provision dealing with acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India — even though the charge sheet material prima facie made out that offence. The sessions court had already rejected bail on 15 May 2026, and the High Court has now confirmed that refusal.

The Raid, the Cyber Centre, and the Charge Sheet

The FIR in Crime No. 500/2024 was registered by Suryanagar Police Station, Bengaluru District, on the basis of a first information dated 30 November 2024 submitted by B.K. Mohan Kumar, a police officer attached to that station. He had acted on credible information and raided a Cyber Centre called Wow Technology, U.K., where he apprehended Accused No. 1, Arnab Mandal. The raid yielded a large number of rental agreements and other documents that had been used to create fraudulent PAN cards and Aadhaar cards for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh — immigrants who, according to the charge sheet, had been introduced to Arnab Mandal by the petitioner, Sidul Mandal.

Sidul Mandal was arrested on 22 November 2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed against both accused, who are Bangladesh citizens, for offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 14 and 14(A) of the Foreigners Act, and Section 12(1)(A)(a)(b) of the Indian Passport Act. The original FIR had additionally included Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

During investigation, the police recovered from Arnab Mandal's office a large cache of rental agreements, fake seals, Aadhaar card applications in different names, and a large number of PAN card applications standing in different names. The court read this volume of material as indicating that preparations were underway to furnish identity documents to many more illegal immigrants — immigrants who, according to the court, had already entered India and whose whereabouts remained unknown.

The Legal Issue: Bail, Gravity, and an Uninvoked Provision

The petitioner's counsel pressed three points before the High Court. The maximum sentence for the charged offences is seven years. Mandal had no criminal antecedents. He had already been in custody for over one and a half years and, since investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The High Court Government Pleader seriously opposed the petition on grounds that the petitioner had committed anti-national activities, that mere filing of a charge sheet was not a ground for bail, and that because Mandal hails from Dhaka, Bangladesh, securing his presence for trial would be difficult if he were released.

Justice Vishwajith Shetty accepted the prosecution's position, but the court's reasoning extended well beyond the arguments of counsel. The bench reproduced Section 152 of the BNS, 2023 — which replaced Section 124A of the IPC — in full. That provision punishes, with imprisonment for life or up to seven years, acts that purposely or knowingly excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encourage separatist feelings, or endanger the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.

The court then held: “the act committed by the petitioner… has the effect of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.” Having said that, it recorded a pointed criticism of the investigation: the Investigating Officer had prima facie erred in not invoking Section 152 BNS against the petitioner, even though the charge sheet material made out a case for it. The court noted that charges had not yet been framed by the Trial Court, leaving that question open.

On the Foreigners Act, the bench found that the charge sheet material showed Mandal had assisted and abetted Arnab Mandal to commit the offences alleged, and therefore the conduct attracted Sections 13 and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act — provisions the court found applicable beyond what had been charged. The court also noted that the bail application of Accused No. 1, Arnab Mandal, had been dismissed by this Court itself earlier in Criminal Petition No. 5554/2025 on 20 June 2025.

Why the Court Refused Bail

The bench identified several converging factors, each pointing against release.

First, the whereabouts of the illegal immigrants who had already received or applied for fraudulent identity documents were unknown. The court read the volume of seized documents as evidence that a large number of such immigrants had already entered India through this network.

Second, the court found it could not rule out that Mandal would engage in similar conduct if released, given the nature and scale of the activities disclosed in the charge sheet.

Third, Mandal is a Bangladesh national with a permanent address in Dhaka. The court agreed with the prosecution that securing his attendance for trial would be genuinely difficult in the event of release on bail.

Fourth, and most directly, the court held that the gravity of the offences — particularly their direct detrimental effect on national security — outweighed the routine bail considerations of completed investigation and the statutory maximum sentence. The bench stated plainly that completion of investigation and filing of a charge sheet, standing alone, do not entitle an accused to bail. The seven-year maximum sentence for the offences as charged was also not, in the court's view, a ground to release the petitioner given the surrounding facts.

The observation that Section 152 BNS had not been invoked, though the material prima facie supported it, carries significance for the trial court proceedings. Because charges had not yet been framed, the Trial Court will have before it a High Court order specifically flagging that the Investigating Officer may have omitted a potentially applicable provision carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Outcome

Criminal Petition No. 8790 of 2026 was dismissed. Sidul Mandal remains in judicial custody. The matter is pending as SC No. 5040/2025 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal.