Serious offenses like human trafficking, involving coercion and fraud, justify bail denial, supported by prima facie evidence and the principle that bail is not favored in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

[PER : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.] :-

1) Present Appeal challenges a common Order dated 06^th December 2024, below Exhibits 9 & 10, in NIA Special Case No.1225 of 2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, under NIA Act, Greater Mumbai. Thereby, the learned Judge declined the prayer of the Appellant/Original Accused No.1 to release him on bail in the said case.

2) Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for Appellant, Mr. Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, for Respondent No.1, NIA and Smt. Mhatre, the learned APP for the Respondent No.2, State. Perused the record.

3) The prosecution case is 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 to abroad, they were forced to do fraudulent activities resulting in unlawful gains for the accused persons. The informant and others were abused, threatened to kill and assaulted with fist and kick blows in order 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.

3.1) The informant upon his return to India lodged a complaint with Vile Parle Police Station on 23^rd March 2024 which came to be registered at FIR bearing C.R. No. 298 of 2024, 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 on 25^th March 2024. Further investigation was conducted by the DCB, CID Unit by registering its C.R. No.33 of 2024. Thereafter the NIA took the control of the prosecution. The investigation culminated by NIA for the offences aforesaid. Accordingly, the initial and supplementary charge-sheets came to be filed against the Appellant, A-2/Godfrey Thomas Alvares, A-3/Sudarshan Darade and the wanted accused. The Appellant was denied bail during pendency of the investigation. His Application for bail at Exh.9 after filing of the charge-sheet also met with rejection by the impugned Order. Hence, this Appeal.

4) Mr. Shaikh, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, prior to leaving for abroad each of the alleged trafficking victims had been duly informed in India about the nature of employment and had been provided with formal employment contracts. Only after careful deliberations, the victims made a willful choice of exercising their employment rights abroad. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the Appellant was engaged in inducement of trafficking victims or lured them to accept such employment. He submitted that the Appellant himself had entered into an employment contract and held a work permit both of which forms part of the prosecution record thereby placing the Appellant at par with trafficking victims and therefore he cannot be accused of engaging in human trafficking. He submitted that the statement of the witnesses about the nature of the employment which allegedly involve certain scamming activities cannot be relied upon particularly when none of the purported victims of such scam forms part of the prosecution case. There is no evidence of cheating against the Appellant. Without any proper investigation the NIA has unjustifiably invoked the offence of Section 371 of IPC. The charge of extortion as invoked completely falls flat as the monies paid by the trafficking victims were merely towards facilitation and for securing their own safety and return