news details |
|
|
| Court denies bail to foreign national in trafficking case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 14: Observing that an accused cannot claim bail merely for producing defence evidence when the trial is nearing completion, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has rejected the bail application of a foreign national facing charges in an alleged human trafficking case.
Additional Sessions Judge Ritesh Kumar Dubey, while dismissing the application of Shah Jahan, held that the gravity of the allegations, the stage of trial and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice were significant considerations while deciding the bail plea.
The accused is facing trial in FIR No. 02/2024 registered at Police Station Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU), Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, under Sections 370-A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly involved in trafficking a woman from Myanmar to India through Bangladesh for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
During the hearing, Advocate Rajeev Sharma, appearing for the accused, submitted that his client had remained in judicial custody for approximately two years and five months and that the prosecution evidence had already been completed.
The defence contended that the accused required release on bail to produce evidence in support of his case and was prepared to furnish adequate sureties and comply with conditions imposed by the Court.
The counsel also relied upon judgments of the Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court in support of the bail application.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the prosecution had already examined its witnesses and completed its evidence and that the case was approaching the final stage.
The prosecution argued that despite sufficient opportunities, the accused had failed to produce defence witnesses and was seeking bail without showing any compelling reason.
It was further submitted that the accused, being a foreign national, could evade the judicial process if released on bail.
After examining the record and rival submissions, the Court observed that the prosecution evidence had been closed on January 6, 2026, following which the matter proceeded to the stage of defence evidence.
The Court noted that despite approximately ten months having elapsed, the accused had not examined any defence witness.
The Court further observed that defence witnesses could be summoned through judicial process and that the accused's personal release was not indispensable for securing their attendance.
Significantly, the Court held that seeking bail merely for producing defence evidence did not automatically entitle an accused to release, particularly when no specific evidence requiring his personal presence had been identified.
Taking note of the seriousness of the allegations, the Court observed that the accused's residence in Myanmar raised concerns regarding the possibility of his fleeing the country during trial.
The Court also held that the judgments cited by the defence were distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Finding no merit in the application, Additional Sessions Judge Ritesh Kumar Dubey rejected the bail plea. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
