Human Trafficking

Pb. & Hyr. High Court: Custodial quizzing a must 

Chandigarh, June 28
Holding that human trafficking was “eating the society as white ant”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favour of custodial interrogation in such cases.
Rejecting anticipatory bail pleas filed against the State of Punjab by Mohali-based Bikram Singh Dhillon and Amitesh Bhatia, Justice Alok Singh asserted: “Nowadays human trafficking is a new type of offence, which is coming up and eating the society as white ant…. In my opinion, custodial interrogation seems to be must. Considering gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.”
The two were seeking bail in a cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy case registered on May 19 under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Mohali police station.
The prosecution had claimed the petitioners were running a travel agency under the name of M/s Paragon Overseas at Phase II in Mohali. The complainant in the case paid Rs 4.10 lakh to the petitioners after they assured him of admission in a business management course in the UK.
The prosecution had claimed the petitioners applied for the complainant’s visa after filling up the forms and preparing the documents. But, the visa was rejected on the ground that the enclosures were found to be forged.
The complainant too was “debarred from making fresh application to obtain visa for 10 years. Also, the university in which complainant was to get admission was blacklisted and he could not be sent to the UK.
Appearing before the court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had already refunded “handsome amount” to the complainant after deducting charges and expenses paid by them.
Elaborating on the grounds for rejection of the bail pleas, Justice Alok Singh observed: “In the opinion of this court, payment of amount by the complainant to the petitioners is admitted; blacklisting of the institute is also admitted; filling up the forms for obtaining visa by the petitioners is also admitted; visa was rejected having found enclosures forged is also admitted; not only this, complainant was debarred from making fresh application to obtain visa for 10 years is also admitted fact.”