Rajasthan High Court, sitting as a Division Bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal, dismissed the criminal appeals preferred by three Myanmar nationals who had sought bail after their arrest in connection with an alleged trafficking racket involving Rohingya‑origin girls. The appellants were charged before the Special Judge (NIA cases) with offences that include illegal entry into India without valid passports, deception of Rohingya girls by promising marriage, and subsequent sale of the victims. The trial court had refused their bail applications, prompting the present appeals.
The Bench noted that the gravity of the allegations required careful consideration. It emphasized that the accused were alleged to have operated as residents of Myanmar, thereby raising a substantial risk of flight if released. The State, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that the appellants could threaten or intimidate the protected witnesses and the complainants, whose statements had not yet been recorded at the stage of the bail hearing. The Prosecution further contended that the material witnesses, including the victims, were still to be examined, and any premature release could jeopardise the integrity of the impending trial.
In response, the defence counsel argued that the appellants had been in judicial custody for more than two years, that the statements of the protected witnesses had already been recorded, and that the conclusion of the trial might be delayed. Counsel maintained that the accused were falsely implicated and that continued incarceration amounted to an unjust deprivation of liberty.
After weighing the rival submissions, the Division Bench observed that the seriousness of the charges, the possibility of witness tampering, and the likelihood of the accused absconding outweighed the considerations raised by the defence. The Court held that it was not just and proper to allow the appeals at that juncture, and consequently upheld the order of the Special Judge denying bail. The Bench made it clear that its decision was based solely on the facts and circumstances presented, the statements of the case, and the nature of the offences under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and the need to safeguard the trial process.
The ruling underscores the approach adopted by Indian courts when bail is sought in cases involving transnational trafficking, particularly where the accused are foreign nationals and the alleged victims belong to a vulnerable minority. By refusing bail, the Court sought to prevent any potential obstruction of justice and to ensure that the trial could proceed without interference from the accused. The order also signals that prolonged pre‑trial detention, while a matter of concern for the defence, will not automatically outweigh the State’s interest in protecting witnesses and securing the presence of the accused for trial.
The matter is now listed for further proceedings before the Special Judge (NIA). The parties are expected to continue with the recording of statements of the protected witnesses and the complainants, after which the trial will advance on the merits of the charges.