Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has granted bail to a man accused of trafficking of Indians to Iran for illegal organ trade. The court observed that prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes an unjust deprivation of personal liberty, and bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

A Division bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, delivered the ruling. The court noted that the allegations against the Bellamkonda Ram Prasad, arrayed as the fourth accused, primarily involved monetary transactions amounting to ₹1,00,000 and that his co-accused had already been granted bail. It held that denying bail in such circumstances would be unjustified.

The case was initially registered on May 19, 2024, under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994. It was alleged that Ram Prasad, along with other individuals, lured victims into donating their organs under false pretenses and trafficked them to Iran, where the organs were transplanted. Subsequently, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation.

Ram Prasad was arrested on May 24, 2024, for hatching a conspiracy to operate illegal organ trade racket by identifying gullible youth with financial constraints, inducing them by giving payments assuring them that organ trade is legal in Iran to obtain their consent to donate their organs, trafficked them to Iran, removing their organs and transplanted their organs to various recipients, after collecting huge amounts from them. The final report also indicated the use of forged documents to carry out these illicit operations.

After one of the co-accused was granted bail, Ram Prasad approched the Special Court for Trial of National Investigation Agency (NIA) Cases, Ernakulam for bail. However, the court rejected his bail plea on the ground that the accused was actively involved in organ trafficking and would continue the mischief by setting traps against poor, innocent persons if he is released on bail. Aggrieved by this, the accused approached the High Court for bail.

The appellant argued that Ram Prasad was similarly situated to the other accused, who had already been granted bail, and sought parity in treatment. It was contended that the appellant’s continued detention violated his fundamental rights, particularly as the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution highlighted the societal impact of such crimes and urged the court to prioritize public interest over the individual’s liberty.

Emphasising that prolonged pre-trial detention infringes upon personal liberty, the court noted that the appellant is in custody since May 24, 2024. The court further took note of the fact that another accused who is also a party to the conspiracy alleged was granted bail, while allowing bail to the appellant.

The court also pointed out that bail jurisprudence allows for the release of accused individuals when trials are unreasonably delayed. It stated: “the legislative policy against the grant of bail will melt down where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time.”

Conclusively, the court held: “we are of the view that on the facts of the present case, we may not be justified in denying bail to the appellant. Inasmuch as we are granting bail on the premise that the denial of bail would amount to infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant, we do not think that the second proviso to Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, would be an impediment against the grant of bail to the appellant.”

As a result, the accused was granted bail with conditions, including the execution of a bond for ₹5,00,000 with two sureties, the surrender of the accused’s passport, and restrictions on travel outside Kerala. The court further directed the accused not to intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.

 

Cause Title: Bellamkonda Ram Prasad v UOI [Crl.A.No.297/2025]

Appearance: For the Appellant- Advocates M.B.Sandeep and  K.P.Sreeja; For the Respondent- Advocate K.S.Prenjith Kumar, Central Government Counsel for Deputy Solicitor General of India.