Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.GADKARI, SHYAM C.CHANDAK, JJ.
Jerry Philips Jacob - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, (Through DCB-CID, Unit – VIII) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 347 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026
For the Appellant : Mr. Zoheb Shaikh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil C. Singh, The Additional Solicitor General of India a/w. Mr.Chintan Shah, Special PP and Mr.Adarsh Vyas, Smt. M.H. Mhatre, APP, Ms. Dhanashree Chavan, Inspector NIA, Mumbai.
Bail refused in human trafficking case involving deception for overseas fraud jobs, document withholding, threats and extortion; prima facie case under serious offence punishable by life term and risks of absconding/tampering outweigh grant.
Headnote:(A) IPC Sections 370, 371, 420, 323, 342, 346, 347, 386, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 and Emigration Act, 1983 Sections 10, 24 - NIA Act - Bail application in human trafficking case - Accused ran unlicensed recruitment agency, deceived job seekers with promises of lawful overseas employment involving cryptocurrency explanations but forced them into creating fake profiles on social media for fraudulent investment scams targeting foreigners, inflicting penalties, withholding travel documents, abusing, threatening and extorting money for repatriation after embassy complaint - Prima facie case of criminal conspiracy to traffic for unlawful gains through fraud established - Serious offence under Section 371 punishable up to life imprisonment - Appellant likely to abscond and tamper with evidence post release - Bail refused despite completed investigation, charge-sheets filed and jail time served. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Bail - Principles - Though bail is rule and jail exception, not applicable where strong prima facie case of grave offences exists with risks of absconding or tampering. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Accused and associates lured unemployed youths abroad via sub-agents on pretext of high-paying call center jobs, but compelled them to engage in online fraudulent schemes, shifted between companies upon complaints, imposed fines, seized phones and documents, coerced withdrawal of embassy rescue emails, physically assaulted and extorted for return after victims resisted illegal tasks.
Findings of Court:
Prima facie involvement in syndicate for trafficking under guise of employment, forcing participation in scams for accused's gains, invocation of Section 371 justified, continued detention necessary.
Issues: Whether victims duly informed of job nature via contracts negating trafficking; reliability of witness statements absent scam victims; validity of Section 371 and extortion charges; entitlement to bail given investigation completion and incarceration period.
Ratio Decidendi: Deception evident as promised lawful work differed from forced fraudulent activities; victims coerced via threats, abuse, document retention and extortion; offence gravity and evidence tampering risk preclude bail.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges bail denial in trafficking case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant claims legitimate jobs, no trafficking. (Para 4) |
| 3. prosecution proves deception, coercion prima facie. (Para 5) |
| 4. unlicensed agency recruited for overseas scams. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. victim lured abroad, forced into fraud, extorted. (Para 8) |
| 6. fake profiles used for crypto investment scams. (Para 9) |
| 7. trafficking conspiracy proven; bail risks justify denial. (Para 10) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; application disposed. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
1) Present Appeal challenges a common Order dated 06th 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 23rd 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 25th 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
