Bombay High Court Upholds Refusal Of Bail To Accused Involved In Trafficking Youth Under Guise Of Providing Them Overseas Employment
The Bombay High Court was considering an Appeal challenging a common Order passed by the Special Judge, under the NIA Act, rejecting the prayer of the original accused to release him on bail.
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal of an accused booked for his alleged involvement in trafficking unemployed but reasonably educated youths from India under the guise of providing them lawful employment in foreign companies. The High Court further mentioned that the alleged offence under Section 371 of the IPC is punishable up to life imprisonment.
The High Court was considering an Appeal challenging a common Order passed by the Special Judge, under NIA Act, Greater Mumbai rejecting the prayer of the Appellant/Original Accused to release him on bail.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak held, “In the wake of above, we are of the opinion that, there is a prima facie case against the Appellant that he along with co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy by way of forming a syndicate of all the accused persons mentioned herein for trafficking unemployed but reasonably educated youths from India under the guise of providing them a lawful employment in foreign companies.”
“The victims were subjected to extortion for securing their release from the workplace and for facilitating their return to India. The alleged offence under Section 371 of IPC is punishable upto life imprisonment. The offence is serious in nature. It appears that, after release on bail, the Appellant is likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence”, it added.
Advocate Zoheb Shaikh represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General of India Anil C. Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that between December 2022 to March 2023 the Appellant and his associates/co-accused in furtherance of their common intention and hatching a criminal conspiracy, trafficked the informant Siddharth Yadav and others to abroad on false assurance of providing them employment with handsome income However, after taking the informant and others abroad, they were forced to do fraudulent activities resulting in unlawful gains for the accused persons. The informant and others were abused, threatened to be killed, and assaulted with fist and kick blows to coerce them into withdrawing their complaint made to the Indian Embassy seeking rescue. Additionally, the accused persons subjected the informant to extortion as a condition for facilitating his repatriation to India.
The informant, upon his return to India, lodged a complaint under Sections 420, 370, 323, 342, 346, 347, 386, 504, 506, 120-B and 34 of IPC and Sections 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. The Appellant was arrested, and the NIA took control of the prosecution. The initial and supplementary charge-sheets were filed against the Appellant, second accused Godfrey Thomas Alvares, third accused Sudarshan Darade, and the wanted accused. The Appellant was denied bail during the pendency of the investigation. His Application for bail after filing of the charge-sheet also met with rejection by the impugned Order. It was in such circumstances that the appeal was filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Appellant, along with the co-accused, was running a recruitment agency and he had appointed agents. During the years 2020 to 2023, the Appellant visited South Asian countries such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Lao People's Democratic Republic (LAO), Malaysia, and Sri Lanka to streamline the recruitment process. The recruitment agency of the Appellant was not legal as he was carrying on the recruitment business without a valid certificate.
The facts and circumstances indicated that when the complainant and others had enquired about the nature of the work for which they were getting ready to go abroad, it was impressed upon them that they would be involved in some kind of lawful work. However, the records indicated that, after taking the complainant and other victims abroad, they were instructed to create fake social media profiles on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In certain instances, the trafficked victims were provided with hacked profiles. These profiles included dormant or inactive accounts.
The Bench also found that the trafficking victims were then directed to operate these profiles, develop online identities, initiate conversations with persons from other countries to obtain their WhatsApp numbers and establish further communication. Thereafter, the victims were instructed to gain the confidence of such persons by discussing cryptocurrency investment opportunities and to persuade them to download certain mobile applications. Once the said applications were downloaded and the targeted persons deposited money into those applications, the customers were shown figures indicating profits within the application. However, in reality, no such profits existed, and the entire arrangement was part of a fraudulent scheme, it noted.
“The deposited funds were ultimately transferred to accounts controlled by the accused persons or their associate entities. The record indicates that the appellant was fully aware of these fraudulent activities. However, instead of disclosing the illegality of the operations, the complainant and other victims were taken abroad and compelled to work in the said Companies for the unlawful financial benefit of the accused persons”, it added.
Thus, considering such aspects, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Jerry Philips Jacob v. National Investigation Agency (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:12168-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Zoheb Shaikh
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General of India Anil C. Singh, Special Public Prosecutor Chintan Shah, Advocate Adarsh Vyas, Additional Public Prosecutor M.H. Mhatre, Inspector NIA, Dhanashree Chavan