Human trafficking in immigration garb a ‘growing menace’: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The case stemmed from allegations that the complainant had paid Rs 5.80 lakh to the accused persons after being promised that she would be sent to Canada. According to the allegations recorded in the order, the promise was not fulfilled, and the entire amount was not returned.

Justice Sumeet Goel said immigration fraud can exploit the aspirations of people seeking opportunities abroad and undermine lawful immigration systems. (Image enhanced using AI)

Alleged fraud

Opposing the bail plea, the Punjab government relied on a status report dated May 18, which stated that Singh had allegedly defrauded the complainant of Rs 5.80 lakh, of which Rs 5.50 lakh had allegedly been deposited into his account by the complainant in connection with the promise to send her abroad.

The investigating agency told the court that Singh’s custodial interrogation was required for recovery of the amount. The complainant’s account statement showing the relevant entries was also placed before the court.

The state further argued that custodial interrogation was needed to investigate the alleged broader conspiracy, identify co-accused and recover the money. It also expressed apprehension that Singh could abscond or tamper with evidence if granted anticipatory bail.

The high court noted that the allegations against Singh were “grave and specific” and that he had been specifically named in the FIR. It recorded that, according to the investigation, Singh and his co-accused had allegedly cheated the complainant of Rs 5.80 lakh on the promise of sending her abroad but did not fulfil the promise or return the money.

Defence calls it monetary dispute

Singh’s lawyer argued that the allegations were concocted, improbable and without merit, and that he had been falsely implicated. The defence claimed the allegations were false, vague and exaggerated and that the criminal case had been given a criminal colour to what was essentially a monetary dispute.

The lawyer also argued that the prosecution case was based on documentary evidence already available with the investigating agency, including online bank statements, cheque transactions, Google Pay/UPI records, WhatsApp chats and inquiry proceedings.

On that basis, the defence submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Singh was also ready to join the investigation, his lawyer told the court.

Court flags wider impact of immigration fraud

The court said the alleged offence involved more than financial deceit and referred to the wider concerns surrounding immigration fraud. “The offence in question does not merely involve financial deceit but strikes at the very fabric of social trust, involving elements of human trafficking and cross-border immigration fraud, which are not only grave in nature but also have far-reaching consequences on public order. Cases of this nature, where vulnerable individuals are lured with false promises of lawful migration and are subsequently subjected to exploitation, fall within the ambit of organized human trafficking and merit strict judicial scrutiny and deterrence,” it said.

The court said that such offences strike at the core of public trust and reflect a disturbing trend prevalent in this region, where unscrupulous individuals posing as travel facilitators exploit the aspirations of innocent citizens seeking opportunities abroad.

It added, “These fraudulent activities not only cause severe financial and emotional distress but also undermine the integrity of lawful immigration systems. Therefore, individuals involved in such organized deceit must be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law, leaving no room for leniency.”

Custodial interrogation necessary

Justice Goel said that while considering an anticipatory bail plea, the court must balance individual rights with societal interests. It must consider the nature and magnitude of the alleged offence, the role attributed to the accused and the need for a fair and free investigation.

The court found that there was no plausible basis at that stage to conclude that Singh had been falsely implicated. The material on record and the preliminary investigation appeared to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations.

It further held that granting anticipatory bail could impede an effective investigation, particularly as the investigating agency had sought Singh’s custodial interrogation for recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any.