.jpg)
Bombay High Court Reprimands Sessions Court; Delay in Repatriation of Bangladeshi Human Trafficking Victim
Lapse in Bangladeshi Woman's Trafficking Case; High Court Seeks Explanation from Sessions Court
Mumbai: The repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman, a victim of a horrific human trafficking case, has been stalled due to delays on the part of the Sessions Court. The Bombay High Court has issued a stern reprimand to the Sessions Court in this matter and has sought an explanation regarding the delay.
The woman was lured to India with the promise of a job at a beauty parlor after she found herself in financial distress due to her husband's debts. She was brought across the Bangladeshi border into India without any valid documentation. The police subsequently rescued her along with six other girls (including a minor). While the minor girl was repatriated by the Child Welfare Committee, the other girls were also sent back home. The Government of India had granted permission for this woman, too, to be repatriated to her home country. However, as the case remained pending in the Sessions Court, her statement could not be recorded, and charges were not framed. Consequently, the validity period of the repatriation permission expired.
Currently, the woman is unwell and is undergoing treatment at the municipal-run Shatabdi Hospital. She is residing at a shelter home run by the NGO 'Rescue Foundation.' Her hopes were shattered after the trafficker forced her into prostitution.
A bench of the High Court (comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata) came down heavily on the Sessions Court for its negligence. Although another bench had issued orders on October 8, 2025, to expedite the recording of her statement, those orders were not implemented. Noting that the victim continues to suffer hardship, the Court directed the Sessions Court to record her statement by March 24, 2026. Furthermore, it has sought a written explanation regarding the delay. The Registrar General has been directed to submit a report in this regard. The High Court clarified that, in this case, it is the responsibility of the lower court to conduct a separate trial against the absconding accused and to frame charges against the arrested accused. Emphasis has been placed on completing the proceedings as expeditiously as possible to facilitate the victim's return to her home country.
Lapse in Bangladeshi Woman's Trafficking Case; High Court Seeks Explanation from Sessions Court
Mumbai: The repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman, a victim of a horrific human trafficking case, has been stalled due to delays on the part of the Sessions Court. The Bombay High Court has issued a stern reprimand to the Sessions Court in this matter and has sought an explanation regarding the delay.
The woman was lured to India with the promise of a job at a beauty parlor after she found herself in financial distress due to her husband's debts. She was brought across the Bangladeshi border into India without any valid documentation. The police subsequently rescued her along with six other girls (including a minor). While the minor girl was repatriated by the Child Welfare Committee, the other girls were also sent back home. The Government of India had granted permission for this woman, too, to be repatriated to her home country. However, as the case remained pending in the Sessions Court, her statement could not be recorded, and charges were not framed. Consequently, the validity period of the repatriation permission expired.
Currently, the woman is unwell and is undergoing treatment at the municipal-run Shatabdi Hospital. She is residing at a shelter home run by the NGO 'Rescue Foundation.' Her hopes were shattered after the trafficker forced her into prostitution.
A bench of the High Court (comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata) came down heavily on the Sessions Court for its negligence. Although another bench had issued orders on October 8, 2025, to expedite the recording of her statement, those orders were not implemented. Noting that the victim continues to suffer hardship, the Court directed the Sessions Court to record her statement by March 24, 2026. Furthermore, it has sought a written explanation regarding the delay. The Registrar General has been directed to submit a report in this regard. The High Court clarified that, in this case, it is the responsibility of the lower court to conduct a separate trial against the absconding accused and to frame charges against the arrested accused. Emphasis has been placed on completing the proceedings as expeditiously as possible to facilitate the victim's return to her home country.
Mumbai: The repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman, a victim of a horrific human trafficking case, has been stalled due to delays on the part of the Sessions Court. The Bombay High Court has issued a stern reprimand to the Sessions Court in this matter and has sought an explanation regarding the delay.
The woman was lured to India with the promise of a job at a beauty parlor after she found herself in financial distress due to her husband's debts. She was brought across the Bangladeshi border into India without any valid documentation. The police subsequently rescued her along with six other girls (including a minor). While the minor girl was repatriated by the Child Welfare Committee, the other girls were also sent back home. The Government of India had granted permission for this woman, too, to be repatriated to her home country. However, as the case remained pending in the Sessions Court, her statement could not be recorded, and charges were not framed. Consequently, the validity period of the repatriation permission expired.
Currently, the woman is unwell and is undergoing treatment at the municipal-run Shatabdi Hospital. She is residing at a shelter home run by the NGO 'Rescue Foundation.' Her hopes were shattered after the trafficker forced her into prostitution.
A bench of the High Court (comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata) came down heavily on the Sessions Court for its negligence. Although another bench had issued orders on October 8, 2025, to expedite the recording of her statement, those orders were not implemented. Noting that the victim continues to suffer hardship, the Court directed the Sessions Court to record her statement by March 24, 2026. Furthermore, it has sought a written explanation regarding the delay. The Registrar General has been directed to submit a report in this regard. The High Court clarified that, in this case, it is the responsibility of the lower court to conduct a separate trial against the absconding accused and to frame charges against the arrested accused. Emphasis has been placed on completing the proceedings as expeditiously as possible to facilitate the victim's return to her home country.
