Syed Arif v. The State of Telangana

the police received a complaint from one Sri Habeeb Zain, wherein it is stated that in April, 2025, the said Habeeb went to Dubai on visiting visa with the guidance of his cousin brother, Khaleed. During that time, he met Mosin, native of Hyderabad, who was then working in Kuwait as a driver. As Habeeb Zain was still seeking job opportunities abroad, he requested Mosin to help him and introduced him to Arif, who became the main person and responsible for sending him abroad. The said Arif offered him a data –entry job in Bangkok and assured him it was genuine stating that he himself was working in Myanmar for the same company. Trusting him, Habeeb Zain accepted the offer and attended a Zoom interview with Wentao, the Managing Director of Zhantu Group, Myanmar, in August, 2024. The said Arif cooridinated everying and the company booked his tourist ticket from Hyderabad to Bangkok on 10.08.2025.

It is further stated that in August, 2025, Habeeb Zain was illegally transported from Hyderabad to Bangkok and then to Mae Sot. He was transported through Thailand’s forests into Myanmar, where he was taken to KK6 Park and - 3 - forced to sign a one year contract. At Zhantu Company, he underwent two months of training and was compelled to participate in online scam operations. When he refused, he was fined 5,000 THB and jailed for 24 hours. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

Heard Sri Shaik Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offences; that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime; that though prosecution alleged that several victims are in the hands of the petitioner, statement of L.W.1 shows that there are others victims sent by the different agents not by the petitioner as such, requested the Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and would submit that the - 4 - petitioner involved in human trafficking and online scamming operations; that there are number of victims in the hands of the petitioner; that investigation is not yet completed and police had to record the statements of victims, who were suffered in the hands of the petitioner, as such at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail and therefore, he requested the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and material available on record, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.6 and he is in judicial custody since 19.11.2025. It is evident from the record that statement of L.Ws.1 to 8 were recorded. Considering the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail and the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner/A.6 subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused No.6 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. - 5 - (ii) On such release, the petitioner-accused No.6 shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. (iii) The petitioner-accused No.6 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480 (3) of BNSS).