Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Dunki Agent in ₹65 Lakh US Immigration Fraud Case

Introduction

On 16 June 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to grant anticipatory bail to an accused implicated in a “dunki”-style illegal immigration scam, where he allegedly defrauded a migrant out of ₹65 lakh by promising to facilitate his travel to the United States—only to have him deported afterward. (livelaw.in)

Background: What is the Dunki Route?

The term “dunki route” refers to an illegal method of migrating abroad that bypasses all official channels and legal permissions. Migrants are taken through a circuitous and often perilous journey—typically passing from India to Dubai, then via overland routes through Central or South American countries (such as Panama), and eventually crossing into the U.S. directly from Mexico.

The Supreme Court characterised such facilitators as damaging to genuine travelers and even depreciating the value of passport norms. One bench highlighted that activities like these lower “the standing of Indian passports internationally” and exploit “gullible poor people” in the process.

The FIR: Allegations & Sequence of Events

As recorded in the FIR lodged with Haryana Police:

1. A man named Raja approached an agent named Surinder, seeking legal passage to the United States. Surinder pledged to make that happen in exchange for ₹43 lakh—an advance ₹3 lakh was paid in May 2024.

2. In July 2024, Surinder sent Raja to Dubai. From there, Raja was taken across several countries, including travel through the Panamanian jungles and ultimately to Mexico.

3. On 1 February 2025, the network forcibly crossed Raja into the U.S. He was promptly arrested by U.S. authorities and deported from the U.S. on 16 February 2025.

4. Following Raja’s deportation, an additional ₹22 lakh was collected from his father—raising the total amount extracted to ₹65 lakh.

Thus, the complaint includes multiple offenses: criminal conspiracy, cheating, facilitation of illegal migration, criminal breach of trust, and intimidation. Charges filed encompass IPC Sections 120‑B (criminal conspiracy), 370 (trafficking), 406 (breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation)—along with their counterparts in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Two accused are named: Surinder, the agent, and Om Prakash, an alleged facilitator (co-accused). It is Om Prakash who sought anticipatory bail first in the trial court, then in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, both of which denied relief.

Procedural History: Bail Pleas Rejected at Multiple Levels

Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat)

Om Prakash first appealed for anticipatory bail at this level, which was rejected on 21 March 2025.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

The High Court ruled that:

• The allegations against Om Prakash are prima facie serious, with strong evidence suggesting his involvement.

• The complainant’s father specifically stated that ₹22 lakh was paid to Om Prakash.

• The accused also had previous criminal records in similar offenses.

• Since the case was in early investigative stages, custodial interrogation was deemed essential.

The High Court emphasised that anticipatory bail is the exception, and the accused had provided no extraordinary justification for such relief.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench—comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan—upheld the High Court’s stance and declined to override it.

The bench observed that:

• The charges involve “very serious allegations”, including facilitating illegal migration and major fraud.

• Such actions negatively affect India’s image and global credibility.

• There is no compelling reason to grant anticipatory bail.

• The High Court had rightly found no exceptional grounds to justify bail at this stage.

  
  

The Supreme Court bluntly commented, “Indian passports get devalued because of people like you,” "you are taking gullible poor people for a ride," and reiterated its inability to excuse such actions merely through the bail process.

Legal Framework: Anticipatory Bail in India

In India, anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (mirrored by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) allows individuals who fear imminent arrest to seek bail before arrest.

However, the legal standard is stringent:

• Relief is granted only on the disclosure of special facts indicating arbitrary or false arrest.

• Courts must find extraordinary circumstances, not just inconvenience or regular legal defense.

• The High Court may impose conditions such as requiring cooperation with investigations and restricted travel.

• 
  

Om Prakash’s plea failed the test because:

1. The offence is serious and complex, involving transnational illegal activity.

2. Evidence—such as witness testimony and past records—leans strongly against him.

3. His participation in events cannot be dismissed as trivial or baseless.

4. The case is at an early stage, which judicial precedent mandates as a time for custodial questioning—not bail.

Wider Repercussions & Context

Dunki-route operations have drawn intense scrutiny from both Indian and U.S. authorities. A massive deportation—transporting hundreds of Indians back from the U.S. in February 2025 aboard military aircraft—sparked national debate around exploitative migration networks and diplomatic embarrassments.

Public officials and the media accused the government of mishandling the situation, citing cases of Indians being cuffed and flown out, prompting criticism over the dignity and rights of Indian nationals abroad.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s tough stance against facilitators of such illegal operations sends a strong signal that:

• Courts are unwilling to grant leniency in cases involving exploitation of migrants.

• Legal systems need to preserve passport legitimacy and protect disadvantaged populations.

• Custodial investigation is justified when serious crimes are alleged—especially in transnational fraud.

What Lies Ahead?

• Investigation Continuation: With no bail secured, Om Prakash will remain in custody, and the police will proceed with deeper inquiry and evidence gathering.

• Prosecution Trajectory: If the investigation substantiates the allegations, prosecution will follow under IPC sections previously mentioned, alongside relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

• Potential for Higher Appeal: It’s likely that Om Prakash may still pursue relief via review petitions or challenge the High Court’s refusal at a later procedural stage.

• Policy & Diplomatic Angle: The sharp judicial rebuke may influence policy formulation on illegal migration and how Indian agencies collaborate with foreign law enforcement.

Final Takeaways

1. Strict Bail Standards: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that serious national-security-related crimes—like international immigration fraud—are grave matters requiring judicial caution, not preemptive leniency.

2. Public Confidence & Passport Integrity: Illegal networks undermine India’s global image and put honest travelers at risk. The Court expressed concern over the misuse of the system.

3. Role of Custodial Inquiry: Early-stage deep investigations are necessary to uncover cross-border criminal logistics, finance trails, and organizational hierarchies.

4. Deterrence Through Legal Messaging: Supreme Court statements are meant to discourage other facilitators and reassure victims that the judiciary backs stringent enforcement.

By rejecting anticipatory bail, both the High Court and the Supreme Court emphasized that until exhaustive investigation is complete—and unless extraordinary circumstances are proven—those accused of cross-border exploitation remain subject to custody. The judgment reflects the judiciary’s resolve to uphold law, international reputation, and social justice—even when it involves potentially marginalized or desperate accused persons.

Final Word

The Supreme Court’s refusal, reiterated through pointed criticism and moral rhetoric, showcases India’s legal system acting decisively against dunki route conspiracies—sending a warning to perpetrators and highlighting the judiciary’s role in preserving national integrity and individual dignity.