Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court denied bail to an individual accused of trafficking and coercing prostitution from Uzbekistan girls while underscoring the gravity of the charges.

Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the trial is in its early phases, with charges yet to be formalized by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Court was disinclined to grant bail to the accused/applicant.

Representing the State, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the accused, along with accomplices, trafficked girls from Uzbekistan into India and coerced them into prostitution. The State vehemently opposed bail, citing the gravity of the charges and the potential for witness tampering.

In contrast, Advocate Rajesh Rathod, representing the Petitioner, asserted that the accused had been falsely implicated based on statements from co-accused individuals. Rathod pointed out discrepancies in the behavior of the alleged victims.

The Court took cognizance of the allegations, highlighting that seven Uzbekistan girls were allegedly brought into India under various pretexts, including tourist and medical visas, or through illegal means via Nepal. It was alleged that upon arrival, their passports were confiscated, and they were forced into prostitution by the accused.

Escaping from their ordeal, the victims sought sanctuary at the Uzbekistan Embassy, where two accused individuals reportedly kidnapped one victim at gunpoint. Subsequently, the victims were handed over to an NGO, which became the complainant in the case. The FIR was registered under Sections 365, 370, 384, 506, 109, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), with additional sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act) added during the investigation due to the allegations of human trafficking.

Regarding the accusations against the applicant/accused, the Court referred to the victim's statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Specific allegations were noted, including arranging visas and receiving payment for bringing victims to India. Additionally, the accused was implicated in a co-accused's disclosure statement, suggesting involvement in trafficking from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

The Bench expressed its opinion that the trial was still in its nascent stage, with charges yet to be framed and numerous prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. Given the potential for influence or pressure on these witnesses, the Court declined to grant bail at this juncture. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that its decision did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Utkirbek Khalilov @ Ali vs. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi (2024:DHC:1703)