The Gujarat High Court Tuesday rejected the regular bail plea of an MBA professional accused of converting cyber crime proceeds received in cryptocurrency from the Chinese mafia into US dollars, stating that he is an “important cog” in the wheel of crime.
The bench of Justice N S Kariel, however, granted bail to two other accused in the case, saying that they were trying to find employment for their friends “without knowing the consequences” that they would be trafficked to Myanmar to carry out cyber crimes.
The court was hearing three separate regular bail pleas for the accused – Shashank Saxena, Akib Husen Saiyed, and Danish Dantreliya – in a September 2025 case involving an international cyber slavery racket. The case pertains to arrests made by the Surat Cyber Crime police station, which had busted a syndicate in Chandigarh and arrested several people allegedly involved in sending people to Myanmar and Thailand with fake job offers and salary packages of Rs 70,000 per month.
As per the police case, Saiyed, who runs a clothing shop in Chhatral, had been arrested for sending two youths to Myanmar through Dantreliya. They allegedly received commissions of Rs 21,500 and Rs 28,000, respectively, for each person sent to Myanmar. According to the Surat police, Dantreliya had allegedly contacted Saiyed and asked him to refer individuals who were looking for jobs abroad.
Crime ‘may not have taken place’ without Saxena’s support
The court dismissed the bail plea of accused Shashak Saxena, 24, a Mumbai-based MBA professional who had submitted that he “had no knowledge about the crime” and was only converting the cryptocurrency for the main accused agent, Neepender alias Nirav Lavkush Chaudhary, for a meagre commission.
Rejecting the submission of Saxena’s counsel Kartikey Kanojia that the applicant was an innocent victim, the court, in an oral order passed on Tuesday, said that without his support, “the crime may not have taken place”.
The court said in the oral order, “It would appear that the crime alleged in the FIR being very serious is in relation to human trafficking, where Indian citizens were given allurement of employment in Myanmar and whereas the air tickets, etc, were being provided by the so-called employers… Indian citizens (were taken to Thailand) and illegally crossed over to Myanmar, where they are held as cyber slaves in the said country…”
Story continues below this ad
“While it would appear that the role of the applicant does not seem to be connected to the principal offence that is with alluring Indian citizens to go to Thailand and from there to Myanmar… Yet, having persued the documents, it would appear that the present applicant appears to be a very important cog to the entire wheel of crime…”
Saxena ‘converted crypto worth over Rs 1.5 crore’
Saxena is accused of converting cryptocurrency worth Rs 1.54 crore for Chaudhary. The court orally remarked, “The present applicant was working as an agent for main accused, Neepender Chaudhary, inasmuch as, the proceeds of the crime, i.e. commission of the company run through Chinese agents (in Myanmar) sent to the main accused Neepender was in the form of cryptocurrency. The present applicant used to convert cryptocurrency into e-wallets and then have the same converted to USD…”
The court further said, “While it is submitted by the advocate for the petitioner that the applicant is a small-time commission agent…it would appear that the present applicant may not have been an innocent victim but…a willing accomplice having regard to the fact that the amount converted by the present applicant… is more than Rs 1.5 crore.”
The bench also considered the submissions of Assistant Public Prosecutor Jay Mehta, who opposed the bail plea of Saxena, and pointed out that the people who “are now being held as cyber slaves are being used in an entire network of cyber (digital) arrests…operated by Chinese and other foreign nationals.”
Story continues below this ad
“Having regard to the seriousness of the offence, where the Indian citizens are being held as cyber slaves in a different country…it would appear that at this stage, even though the chargesheet is filed, the present applicant would not be entitled to regular bail. Considering the same, the present application stands dismissed,” the court said.
Two others granted bail
Considering the bail pleas of the other two accused, Saiyed, a resident of Gujarat’s Chhatral, and Dantreliya, who hails from Sabarkantha, the court said, “it would appear that the present applicants were only small-time players…who had attempted to get good employment for their friends…the applicant (Saiyed) had been informed by (Dantreliya) that he had been contacted by one person named Alfaz, who had given him the number of Chinese agent who was to be contacted if any person wanted employment in Myanmar where the salary would be around Rs 70,000 per month.”
“It would appear that Dantreliya had informed Saiyed, who was his friend, that if there were persons looking for employment, he would inform Dantreliya,” the court said.
The court considered the submissions of the advocates appearing for the two petitioners that Saiyed had contacted his friend Sahil, who had in turn contacted a friend Amin, who wanted employment. Through Saiyed, they had contacted Dantreliya who then contacted the Chinese agent. The air tickets were sent to the person who wanted employment through Dantreliya and Saiyed, as per the police case.
Story continues below this ad
The court orally remarked, “While it would appear that the present applicants had received some commissions, i.e. Rs 43,000 (or Rs 21,500 for each person sent) for the accused Saiyed, and Rs 28,000 for each person sent for Danish. Beyond the said role, the applicants had no role to play in the entire conspiracy…prima facie it would appear that the actions of the applicants appear to be bonafide, more particularly, without knowing the consequences.”
Granting them bail on a bond of Rs 50,000 each and with conditions, including marking monthly presence at the police station concerned, the court orally stated, “…it would appear that not releasing the present applicants on bail may amount to pre-trial punishment.”
