The Gujarat High Court’s decision to grant bail to two young men accused of facilitating the trafficking of Indians into cyber slavery in Myanmar highlights the legal complexities of attributing criminal intent in cross-border cybercrime cases.
Background and Timeline:
The case stems from an FIR registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat City, involving allegations that the accused, Akib Husen Saiyed and Danish Dantreliya, referred acquaintances for jobs in Myanmar, where they were subsequently forced into cyber slavery. The arrests occurred in late 2025, with the High Court granting bail on January 6, 2026.
Modus Operandi:
The accused acted as intermediaries, relaying job offers promising salaries of ₹70,000–₹75,000 per month in Myanmar. Unbeknownst to them, the individuals they referred were trafficked and coerced into working in scam centers. The chain of communication flowed from a Chinese agent to local intermediaries, with the accused three steps removed from the actual traffickers. Their involvement was limited to acting as referrers, for which they received modest commissions of ₹21,500 and ₹28,500, respectively.
Victims and Financial Impact:
The case involved the trafficking of at least 40 youths, who were forced to work at gunpoint in illegal call centers engaged in online investment frauds. Victims seeking repatriation were charged between ₹3.5 lakh and ₹4 lakh. The broader financial impact includes both the losses suffered by the trafficked individuals and the proceeds generated by the scam centers.
Investigation and Agencies Involved:
The investigation was led by the Surat Cyber Crime Police, with the High Court reviewing affidavits and evidence presented by the investigating officer. The case invoked multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court imposed conditions on bail, including surrender of passports and regular police reporting.
Arrests and Suspects:
Akib Husen Saiyed and Danish Dantreliya were granted bail after the court found no evidence of deliberate criminal intent. The court distinguished between actual conspirators and unknowing intermediaries, emphasizing the importance of mens rea (criminal mindset) in criminal law. The prosecution’s plea for continued detention was rejected, with the court citing the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
Broader Implications and Trends:
This case highlights the challenges of prosecuting low-level actors in complex, transnational cybercrime networks. The court’s nuanced approach underscores the need to balance individual rights with the seriousness of the underlying offenses. It also reflects the broader trend of cyber slavery recruitment through personal networks and the importance of distinguishing between intentional and unwitting participation in criminal enterprises.