Why no trafficking charge, asks HC

KOCHI: Why wasn't the offence of human trafficking included in the case over alleged smuggling of around 70 persons through

Munambam

harbour, the high court asked on Friday.


Considering bail pleas related to the case, justice B Sudheendra Kumar asked why the possibility of an investigation by a central agency was not considered, given the international links of the alleged incident and the limitations of police in conducting a probe at that level.

Bail applications, being considered by the court, were by third accused Anil Kumar, who is the allegedly the owner of the boat in which the trafficking was carried out, and seventh accused Ravi Sanoop Raja, accused of being an agent who facilitated the alleged trafficking.

The case relates to alleged smuggling of around 70 persons, including Sri Lankan natives, from Munambam harbour to

Christmas Island

, which is an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, on January 12. Vadakkekara police had registered the case for violation of provisions of Passport Act, Emigration Act, and Foreigners Act as well as various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC), including abetment (Section 109), conspiracy (120B), forgery for cheating (Section 468), and using a forged document as genuine (Section 471).

At the hearing, the court pointed out that IPC section 370, which deals with trafficking, has not been included by police. The court asked whether it is only a case of illegal emigration and whether the nation's security is not affected. Is there any assurance that the secrets of the nation have not been leaked, the court asked.

Noting that the statements of the victims have not been recorded yet, the court said how can it be decided that trafficking did not occur. The court then asked the investigating officer to provide an explanation on these aspects and inform the court about the steps taken on each day since the case was registered.