The repatriation of an adult victim of human trafficking does not require a specific judicial order under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; an administrative 'No Objection' from the court having current custody of the victim is sufficient to facilitate departure once necessary international travel documents are secured.

JUDGMENT :

KAMAL KHATA, J.

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a direction for the repatriation of the victim, namely ABC to her country of origin, Bangladesh. The Petitioner further seeks a direction to the Deputy High Commission of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Mumbai to issue a fresh travel permit in the name of the said victim and to facilitate her immediate repatriation, with a further direction to ensure her appearance, as and when required, through video-conferencing in Special Case No.1595 of 2024.

2) Present Petition arises in somewhat unusual circumstances. The Petitioner, a Foundation engaged in the rescue, rehabilitation and repatriation of victims of human trafficking from India, Nepal and Bangladesh, who are subjected to commercial sexual exploitation, had on 27th December 2024, filed an application before the learned Sessions Court seeking repatriation of the victim. The learned Sessions Court, by an oral direction, required the Petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Borivali with the same application, on the ground that the victim was a major. Since the application was not taken on record by the Sessions Court, the Petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Borivali. The learned JMFC declined to entertain on the ground that the case is a Sessions triable matter, involving offences under the POCSO Act in respect of other victims, and that a charge-sheet had already been filed before the Sessions Court.

In these circumstances, the present Petition came to be filed in this Court on 19th June, 2025.

3) We have heard Mr. Ashley Cusher learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Manisha Jagtap for the Respondent No. 1- Union of India and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. We have also carefully perused the material placed on record.

4) A perusal of the earlier Orders discloses an unsatisfactory state of affairs on the part of both the Union and the State, who despite being served, have failed to furnish timely instructions to their Advocates, resulting in considerable delay in a matter of such sensitivity.

5) By an Order dated 8th October, 2025, this Court had directed the Trial Court to record the evidence of the victim. However, as of 11th March, 2026, i.e. over five (5) months thereafter, it was reported that the evidence of the victim had still not been recorded and was scheduled to be taken on 24th March, 2026. There was absolutely no satisfactory explanation offered for this delay. A report was accordingly called for by this Court from the Registry of the trial Court. The Order dated 11th March, 2026 also records the submission of the Petitioner that the earlier permission for repatriation had lapsed on account of the failure of the Trial Court to frame the charges or record the victim’s evidence. A perusal of the report reveals no satisfactory or plausible explanation for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court.

6) Learned Advocate for the Union has placed on record the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for countering Cross-Border Trafficking in Persons between India and Bangladesh, as well as, the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh on bilateral cooperation for Prevention of Human Trafficking, particularly trafficking in women and children and for the rescue, recovery, repatriation and reintegration of the victims of trafficking. The Maharashtra Module for Cross-Border Repatriation to Bangladesh dated 3rd March, 2009, annexed to the Petition, also sets out, inter alia, the applicabl