Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail to Myanmar Nationals Accused of Trafficking Rohingya Girls Under Guise of Marriage
Court Cites Gravity of Human Trafficking Allegations, Risk of Witness Intimidation and Flight While Rejecting Bail Appeals
In a significant order dealing with alleged cross-border human trafficking, the Rajasthan High Court has refused bail to three Myanmar nationals accused of illegally bringing Rohingya-origin girls into India under the false promise of marriage and subsequently selling them. The Court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of the investigation did not justify granting bail.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal dismissed criminal appeals challenging an earlier order of the Special Judge dealing with National Investigation Agency (NIA) cases, which had rejected the accused persons’ bail applications. The High Court found no reason to interfere with that decision.
According to the prosecution, the accused, who are alleged to be residents of Myanmar, entered India without valid travel documents and trafficked Rohingya-origin girls by deceiving them into believing they would be married. The prosecution further alleged that after bringing the victims into India, they were sold, making the case one of organized human trafficking involving vulnerable women.
Counsel for the accused argued that they had been in judicial custody for more than two years and had been falsely implicated. The defence also submitted that statements of certain protected witnesses had already been recorded and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, warranting their release on bail.
The State strongly opposed the bail pleas, contending that the accused were foreign nationals with no valid passports and that their release posed a substantial risk. The prosecution argued that they could flee the country or attempt to threaten or influence the victims and other witnesses whose testimony was yet to be recorded.
The Special Public Prosecutor emphasized that the allegations involved illegal cross-border transportation of Rohingya girls through deception for the purpose of exploitation. Given the nature of the accusations and the vulnerability of the victims, the prosecution maintained that the case required continued judicial custody of the accused.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court observed that the statements of protected witnesses, the seriousness of the accusations and the pending evidence collectively weighed against the grant of bail. The Bench concluded that it would not be just or proper to release the accused at this stage of the proceedings.
The Court therefore dismissed all the bail appeals, allowing the criminal proceedings before the trial court to continue. The decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases involving allegations of human trafficking, particularly where the accused are alleged to have operated across international borders and where victim protection remains a primary concern.
Legal experts note that while bail is ordinarily the rule and jail the exception, courts frequently adopt a stricter approach in cases involving organized trafficking, exploitation of women and children, or offences with transnational dimensions. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, the possibility of absconding, witness protection and the larger public interest often play a decisive role in bail adjudication.
