Forced to scam Americans in Myanmar: Jharkhand High Court denies bail to travel agent

The court observed that the numerous WhatsApp chats collected during the investigation pointed to the appellant’s “deep-rooted involvement” in the alleged activities.

Youth allegedly trafficked into cybercrime

The case arose from a cybercrime investigation in which the informant, a Class 12 pass youth from a financially weak family, was allegedly lured by a person named Akhil through Telegram with a promise of a job in Bangkok paying Rs 70,000 per month.

Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Arun Kumar Rai heard the case on September 14.

On October 10, 2025, the informant travelled to Bangkok after receiving flight tickets and other documents through Telegram. He was subsequently taken by an associate of Akhil by road from Thailand to Myanmar, where he allegedly came into contact with several persons involved in cybercrime.

Following a raid by the Myanmar Army on October 18, 2025, the informant was detained and was later brought back to India with the assistance of the Indian Embassy. Based on his allegations, an FIR was registered against Daud Ahmad and others.

Ahmad, who was not named in the FIR, was later implicated based on the confessional statement of a co-accused. He claimed to be a Mumbai-based travel agent who had merely booked an air ticket for a passenger and denied involvement in the cybercrime. His bail plea was rejected by the special court, following which he approached the high court.

“Money transactions emerge during investigation”

The court noted that the case diary revealed the manner in which victims were allegedly trapped and sent to Thailand and Myanmar for the purpose of cyber fraud and honey trapping, with US citizens being the main targets.

“The money transactions between the appellant and Sartaj Alam have also come to the fore in the course of the investigation, as recorded at paragraph 91 of the case diary,” the court noted.

Although the informant had been declared hostile by the prosecution, the court noted that other victims were yet to be examined.

Considering the overall circumstances and the fact that the bail application of a co-accused had also been rejected, the court found no reason to interfere with the special court’s order rejecting the appellant’s bail and dismissed his appeal.