Mumbai: Bombay high court on Wednesday directed the forthwith repatriation of a 27-year-old Bangladeshi national, a victim of trafficking who has been stranded since her rescue during a raid on a restaurant in Dahisar in 2024.Noting that her repatriation “has been inordinately delayed for over six months” due to delay in recording her evidence, Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata deemed it appropriate to exercise their writ jurisdiction “instead of relegating the parties to the special court”. An NGO, Rescue Foundation, filed a petition seeking the repatriation of the victim to her country of origin. Its advocate, Ashley Cusher, said the victim was lured with the offer of employment at a salon in India. Being in dire financial need, she travelled to India without documents. She has a six-year-old child back home. She was rescued on June 8, 2024, during a raid conducted under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA). On Oct 8, 2025, HC had directed the trial court to record her evidence. But as of March 11 this year, her evidence had still not been recorded. HC had then frowned at the delay. The Centre’s advocate submitted the SOP for counter cross-border trafficking between India and Bangladesh and an MoU for prevention of trafficking, particularly of women and children, and for rescue, repatriation and reintegration of victims. The judges noted that Maharashtra’s March 2009 SOP format required either the consent of the child welfare committee or an order of repatriation from the magistrate. They questioned why an adult victim would require a magistrate’s order when the Centre had granted permission to send her back and the Bangladeshi govt had issued a travel permit. They said an ITPA section that deals with intermediate custody does not contemplate or require any order permitting repatriation of a victim. The judges said the explanation of the Centre’s advocate that the court hearing the matter should grant “no objection” for the repatriation appears “pragmatic and consistent” with the intent of the SOP. In this case, the special court judge who recorded the victim’s statement “would be the appropriate authority to record such ‘no objection'”, they said. In other cases, it would be the court which has granted custody of the victim” to shelters or such persons provided under ITPA. As the victim’s repatriation was delayed, the judges directed her to be sent back forthwith, subject to furnishing of undertakings to ensure her appearance through video-conference in the case.
