[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jerry Philips Jacob vs National Investigation Agency And Anr on 10 March, 2026
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A.S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:12168-DB
WAKLE
MANOJ Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.03.12
16:53:55 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2026
Jerry Philips Jacob
Aged : 46 years, Occupation : Service,
Res : Disha Apartment, Flat No.303,
In front of Chamunda Hotel, BP Road,
Kandarpada, Dahisar (East) - Mumbai
Currently lodged at Mumbai Central Prison .... Appellant
V/s.
1) National Investigation Agency
(Through DCB-CID, Unit - VIII)
2) The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents
________________________________
Mr. Zoheb Shaikh for the Appellant.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, The Additional Solicitor General of India a/w. Mr.Chintan
Shah, Special PP and Mr.Adarsh Vyas for Respondent No.1-NIA.
Smt. M.H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent No.2 - State.
Ms. Dhanashree Chavan, Inspector NIA, Mumbai.
________________________________
CORAM: A.S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT :
[PER : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.] :-
1) Present Appeal challenges a common Order dated
06th December 2024, below Exhibits 9 & 10, in NIA Special Case No.1225 of
2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, under NIA Act, Greater
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
Mumbai. Thereby, the learned Judge declined the prayer of the
Appellant/Original Accused No.1 to release him on bail in the said case.
2) Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for Appellant, Mr. Singh, the
learned Additional Solicitor General of India, for Respondent No.1, NIA and
Smt. Mhatre, the learned APP for the Respondent No.2, State. Perused the
record.
3) The prosecution case is that between December 2022 to March
2023 the Appellant and his associates/co-accused in furtherance of their
common intention and hatching a criminal conspiracy, trafficked the
informant Siddharth Yadav and others to abroad on false assurance of
providing them employment with handsome income. However, after taking
the informant and others to abroad, they were forced to do fraudulent
activities resulting in unlawful gains for the accused persons. The informant
and others were abused, threatened to kill and assaulted with fist and kick
blows in order to coerce them into withdrawing their complaint made to
the Indian Embassy seeking rescue. Additionally, the accused persons
subjected the informant to extortion as a condition for facilitating his
repatriation to India.
3.1) The informant upon his return to India lodged a complaint
with Vile Parle Police Station on 23rd March 2024 which came to be
registered at FIR bearing C.R. No. 298 of 2024, under Sections 420, 370,
323, 342, 346, 347, 386, 504, 506, 120-B and 34 of IPC and Sections 10
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
and 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. The Appellant was arrested on
25th March 2024. Further investigation was conducted by the DCB, CID
Unit by registering its C.R. No.33 of 2024. Thereafter the NIA took the
control of the prosecution. The investigation culminated by NIA for the
offences aforesaid. Accordingly, the initial and supplementary charge-sheets
came to be filed against the Appellant, A-2/Godfrey Thomas Alvares,
A-3/Sudarshan Darade and the wanted accused. The Appellant was denied
bail during pendency of the investigation. His Application for bail at Exh.9
after filing of the charge-sheet also met with rejection by the impugned
Order. Hence, this Appeal.
4) Mr. Shaikh, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted
that,prior to leaving for abroad each of the alleged trafficking victims had
been duly informed in India about the nature of employment and had been
provided with formal employment contracts. Only after careful
deliberations, the victims made a willful choice of exercising their
employment rights abroad. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that
the Appellant was engaged in inducement of trafficking victims or lured
them to accept such employment. He submitted that the Appellant himself
had entered into an employment contract and held a work permit both of
which forms part of the prosecution record thereby placing the Appellant at
par with trafficking victims and therefore he cannot be accused of engaging
in human trafficking. He submitted that the statement of the witnesses
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
about the nature of the employment which allegedly involve certain
scamming activities cannot be relied upon particularly when none of the
purported victims of such scam forms part of the prosecution case. There is
no evidence of cheating against the Appellant. Without any proper
investigation the NIA has unjustifiably invoked the offence of Section 371 of
IPC. The charge of extortion as invoked completely falls flat as the monies
paid by the trafficking victims were merely towards facilitation and for
securing their own safety and return. The prosecution case does not attract
the rigours of any special statute and is being investigated by NIA only in
respect of offences under IPC. Hence, there should not be any impediment
to release the Appellant on bail, particularly in view of well settled principle
of "Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception". He submitted that except the
offence of Section 371 of the IPC, the other alleged offences are punishable
with lesser sentence. Although the offence of Section 371 of IPC is
punishable with maximum imprisonment for life, invocation of said offence
is completely illegal in this case. The investigation is complete and further
detention of the Appellant is not required. Appellant has been in jail for
almost two years. He is not likely to abscond and tamper with prosecution
evidence. Therefore, bail may be granted.
5) In reply, Mr. Singh, the Additional Solicitor General of India has
submitted that there is a strong prima facie case of the alleged offence
against the Appellant. To substantiate this submission, Mr. Singh has
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
pointed out various statements of the witnesses and submitted that the
victims were taken abroad by practicing deception, i.e., on the pretext of
providing them employment promising a lucrative income. However, after
taking them to the pre-decided destination, they were taken to another
location, where they were compelled to engage in fraudulent activities
against their will. When the victims objected to do the said work, their
travel documents were withheld, thereby preventing them from returning
to India and they were demanded money for return of the same, thereby
making the return to India difficult. As such, the offence is serious and
therefore bail may be refused.
6) We have considered these submissions in the light of the
record. It revealed that the Appellant alongwith co-accused was running a
recruitment agency since 2021-2022 and he had appointed agents. During
the year 2020 to 2023 the Appellant used to visit South Asian countries
such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, LAO Peoples Democratic Republic
(Hereinafter "LAO"), Malaysia, Sri Lanka etc., to streamline the recruitment
process of the youths. The recruitment agency of the Appellant was not
legal as he was carrying the recruitment business without a valid certificate.
7) In October 2022, the A-3 Sudarshan Darade had entered into
'Recruitment Service Agreement' with the Appellant to recruit about
thousand employee as 'Live Chat Agent' for LongSheng company at LAO.
Thereafter, the Appellant and co-accused travelled from Mumbai to
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
Golden Triangle, LAO via Thailand. The Appellant used to work for
LongSheng company at LAO as a recruitment agent/HR Head.
8) From perusal of the FIR, statement of witnesses, emails and
the WhatsApp messages, it appears that informant Siddharth Yadav, aged
23 years, a hotel management pass-out, resides in Thane. The informant
was in need of a job. Through his relative, the informant came into contact
with one person namely Rohit who told Appellant that he would assist the
informant in securing a job. Sometime in December 2022, Rohit apprised
the informant that Appellant through his sub-agent namely Sushmita Dabde
were recruiters, who place the deserving candidates in employment,
wherein the candidates would earn 12000/- INR for jobs in India and
65000/- INR for overseas jobs. Being interested in that offer, the informant
asked Rohit about the nature of the job abroad. Rohit apprised him that the
said foreign job would involve working in a call center at Thailand and
explaining the customers about crypto currency. The informant thereafter
decided to get engaged in the job at abroad. Furthermore, Rohit instructed
the informant to pay Rs.50000/- for the job processing fee. However, the
informant could arrange only Rs.30000/- through his brother and balance
Rs.20000/- the informant agreed to pay off from his 1st pay check.
8.1) After a couple of days, the informant received his employment
offer, travel tickets and itinerary from the accused. On 30 th December 2022
he travelled via Mumbai - Bangkok - Thailand (Chiang Rai) flight and
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
arrived at the immigration on 31st December 2022. From there, the
informant along with others with assistance of a Chinese national passed
through Chiang Rai immigration and arrived at LAO. From LAO the
informant was taken to a place called Golden Triangle SEZ. There, the
informant and others were introduced with A-2 and WA-1/Sunny Gonsalves
who provided the informant and others with computers, phones and sim-
cards and explained them the nature and the manner in which the job has
to be performed. However,in reality, the informant and others were caused
to involve in fraudulent activities. They were subjected to pay cut and
penalties even for small mistakes at the work place. Therefore and for the
complaint of harsh working conditions, the Appellant, A-2 and WA-1/Sunny
Gonsalves shifted the informant and some co-workers from the said
Company to another Company.
8.2) On 12th March 2023 the informant along with his colleagues
namely Amit Kumar, Manoj, Shubham and others were celebrating a
birthday wherein a scuffle took place amongst them for which the company
has slapped them with a disciplinary fine. Reactively, the informant and
others urged the Appellant, A-2 & WA-1/Sunny Gonsalves to return their
passports. However, the Appellant told the informant and others to settle
the monetary contractual obligations. On being aggrieved, the informant
and others approached the Indian embassy through email narrating their
situation and urged the Indian Embassy to rescue them. On the same day,
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
the Appellant, A-2 and WA-1/Sunny Gonsalves told the informant and the
others to surrender their mobile phones and delete the data it contained
and pressed upon the informant and others to pay the penalty. The said
accused also abused, threatened, and manhandled them. Additionally, they
were told to withdraw their complaint sent by them via email to the Indian
Embassy. The Appellant snatched 200 Chinese Yuan from the informant as a
consideration for their repatriation. Fortunately, the aforesaid email sent by
the informant and others was acted upon and police of the LAO rescued
and safely removed them from the clutches of the purported persecution
and repatriated them back to India. Thereafter, the informant filed his
complaint on 23rd March 2024 pursuant to which this crime was registered.
9) The aforesaid facts and circumstances indicate that, when the
complainant and others had enquired about the nature of the work for
which they got ready to go abroad, it was impressed upon them that they
would be involved in some kind of lawful work. However record indicates
that, after taking the complainant and other victims abroad, they were
instructed to create fake social media profiles on platforms such as
Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In certain instances, the trafficked victims
were provided with hacked profiles. These profiles included dormant or
inactive accounts. The trafficking victims were then directed to operate
these profiles, develop online identities, initiate conversations with persons
from other countries in order to obtain their WhatsApp numbers and
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
establish further communication. Thereafter, the trafficked victims were
instructed to gain the confidence of such persons by discussing
cryptocurrency investment opportunities and to persuade them to
download certain mobile applications. Once the said applications were
downloaded and the targeted persons deposited money into those
applications, the customers were shown figures indicating profits within the
application. However, in reality, no such profits existed and the entire
arrangement was part of a fraudulent scheme. The deposited funds were
ultimately transferred to accounts controlled by the accused persons or
their associate entities. The record indicates that, the appellant was fully
aware of these fraudulent activities. However, instead of disclosing the
illegality of the operations, the complainant and other victims were taken
abroad and compelled to work in the said Companies for the unlawful
financial benefit of the accused persons.
10) In the wake of above, we are of the opinion that, there is a
prima facie case against the Appellant that he along with co-accused
hatched a criminal conspiracy by way of forming a syndicate of all the
accused persons mentioned herein for trafficking unemployed but
reasonably educated youths from India under the guise of providing them a
lawful employment in foreign companies. After trafficking them, they were
caused to indulge in the acts of deceiving people of other countries for
unlawful gains. Whenever the recruited victims/job seekers used to refuse
Manoj 19 APEAL558.2025.doc
to do the illegal online fraud work for the company and shown
unwillingness for continuing the work, the arrested and wanted accused
used to convince them to continue with the work to earn profit and
promised that they will be promoted as 'Team Leader' in the LongSheng
Company. If the victims still show their unwillingness to continue the illegal
works, they were threatened of dire consequences. The victims were
subjected to extortion for securing their release from the workplace and for
facilitating their return to India. The alleged offence under Section 371 of
IPC is punishable upto life imprisonment. The offence is serious in nature. It
appears that, after release on bail, the Appellant is likely to abscond and
tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, we are not inclined to
grant him bail.
11) In view thereof, the Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
11.1) As a result, aforesaid Interim Application does not survive and
is accordingly disposed off.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
