Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea

“Prima facie, the actions of the applicants appear to be bonafide, more particularly, without knowing the consequences” – In a significant decision with implications for how courts evaluate intent and complicity in organised cybercrime and trafficking networks, the Gujarat High Court on January 6, 2026, granted regular bail to two young men accused in a cyber slavery and human trafficking case, where Indian citizens were deceptively sent to Myanmar and coerced into working as cyber slaves.

The ruling came in R/Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 27701 and 27306 of 2025 filed by Akib Husen Aasik Husen Saiyed and his co-accused, who were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 11210062250046/2025 registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat City. The FIR invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 318(4), 127, 143(3), 61(2), and 3(5), alongside Sections 66(D) and 84(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, while allowing the bail applications, noted that although the broader conspiracy was grave and disturbing, involving young Indians being trafficked abroad under false promises of jobs, “the present applicants were only small-time players who had attempted to get a good employment for their friends.”

"Continued incarceration post-charge-sheet would amount to pre-trial punishment": Court applies Sanjay Chandra principle to uphold liberty

The Court critically examined the nature of the applicants' role and found no deliberate criminal intention. “It would appear that accused – Danish had informed accused – Akib, who happened to be his friend, that if there are any persons looking out for employment, he may inform Danish,” observed the Court, while narrating how the chain of communication flowed from a Chinese agent to local intermediaries, ultimately leading job seekers to Myanmar.

According to the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, the accused had received a commission of merely ₹21,500 each, and their role was restricted to acting as referrers. The Court held, “beyond the same role, the present applicants did not have any further role to play in the entire conspiracy.”

Critically, the Court highlighted the lack of criminal mindset: “While the actions of the present applicants may have led to persons being held as cyber slaves… yet, prima facie, the actions of the applicants appear to be bonafide, more particularly, without knowing the consequences.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court reiterated that pre-trial detention is not to be used as punishment: “Since the charge-sheet is filed… not releasing the present applicants at this stage would almost amount to pre-trial punishment.”

“Applicants acted without full knowledge of trafficking consequences”: Court distinguishes naive job referrals from organised crime

The facts of the case reveal how unsuspecting individuals can be caught in the web of global cybercrime networks. The applicants had simply relayed job offers promising ₹70,000 to ₹75,000 per month in Myanmar, unaware that the people they referred would be forcibly put to work in exploitative online scams.

“Accused Akib had contacted his friend Sahil… through Akib they had contacted Danish, and Danish had contacted the Chinese agent,” the Court noted. The applicants were thus three steps removed from the traffickers and had no direct involvement in arranging the logistics or knowing the end destination.

The Court underscored the necessity of distinguishing between actual conspirators and unknowing intermediaries. “To this Court, it would appear that the actions of the applicants, while legally questionable, do not bear the hallmarks of wilful trafficking or organised criminal intent.”

“Law must guard against using bail denial as retribution”: High Court reaffirms personal liberty in face of social outrage

While the prosecution urged the Court to deny bail due to the serious nature of the crime, the Bench refused to reduce the legal process into a punitive instrument. “This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicants on regular bail,” it held.

Importantly, the Court cautioned that its prima facie observations were only for the purpose of bail and “shall not influence the trial court at the stage of trial.”

Imposing conditions such as surrender of passport, monthly police reporting, and a ₹50,000 bond, the Court granted bail and reminded that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”

Bail granted, law reasserted – knowledge, intent and role matter in criminal law

The Gujarat High Court’s order offers a balanced and legally robust approach to cases arising from cross-border cybercrime and trafficking, where low-level actors may be caught without real understanding of the criminal architecture.

By acknowledging that “the actions appear bonafide” and that the “accused were unaware of the full consequences”, the Court drew a clear doctrinal line between facilitating crime and unwitting participation.

The ruling is a reminder that criminal law punishes intent and informed participation, not mere association, and bail cannot be denied solely because the crime is sensational.

Date of Decision: 06 January 2026