New Delhi, June 17 (UNI) The Supreme Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail to a Haryana man accused of orchestrating an illegal immigration racket through the notorious “donkey route,” expressing strong disapproval over such activities that, according to the Court, tarnish the reputation of Indian passports globally.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, while rejecting the plea filed by Om Prakash, observed on Monday (June 16), “Because of people like you, the value of the Indian passport is diminished.” The bench noted that the charges against the petitioner involved grave allegations of human smuggling and fraud.
The “donkey route” is a term commonly used to describe illicit migration pathways involving multiple border crossings via human traffickers.
Individuals attempting to reach countries like the United States and the United Kingdom often endure perilous journeys through forests, deserts, and detention zones, bypassing formal immigration procedures.
The Court took note of the prosecution's claims that Om Prakash conspired with the main accused to cheat the complainant under the pretext of facilitating legal migration to the United States in exchange for Rs 43 lakh.
Instead, the victim was sent through a harrowing sequence of countries starting in Dubai, moving across Central America, and eventually into Mexico, before being forced to cross the U.S. border illegally via the dangerous terrain of Panama’s jungles.
The complainant was arrested by US authorities on February 1, 2025, detained, and deported back to India on February 16, 2025.
The Supreme Court also referred to the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had earlier dismissed the bail application.
The High Court had noted that the victim's father had specifically accused Om Prakash of defrauding him of Rs 22 lakh, and identified him as a close aide of the main accused operating the trafficking ring.
Terming the allegations as “very serious” and reflective of a broader issue affecting national credibility, the top court refused to interfere with the High Court’s findings and dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.
UNI SNG RN