The Bombay High Court passed the ruling after hearing a plea by NGO Rescue Foundation, which was taking care of the victim in a 2024 case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Pocso Act.The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the immediate repatriation of a 25-year-old victim of immoral trafficking to Bangladesh after she furnishes an undertaking to ensure her appearance during the proceedings virtually as and when required.The court cited “inordinate delay of over six months” in her repatriation to her country of origin and deemed it fit to exercise its own powers under writ jurisdiction, “instead of relegating parties to the special court”.The High Court passed the ruling after hearing a plea by NGO Rescue Foundation, which was taking care of the victim in a 2024 case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.Advocate Ashley Cusher for the petitioner NGO argued that the victim was lured by a woman in Bangladesh on the pretext of getting employment in India at a beauty parlour for considerable remuneration. She accepted the offer due to financial need for repayment of amounts borrowed by her husband, and travelled to India without documents, with the assistance of an agent who helped her cross the Bangladesh border into India.Cusher claimed she must be expeditiously repatriated like other victims to be with her six-year-old son in Bangladesh and cannot be indefinitely kept in a shelter home while awaiting trial. The NGO said the victim fell ill, was hospitalised, lacked an independent livelihood, and remained under the foundation’s care with treatment costs borne by the petitioner.On March 11, the bench observed she continued to suffer due to authorities’ lapses and directed the trial court to frame charges in the case against the available accused to enable early repatriation of the victim.Also read | Trafficking victim suffers due to lapses; Bombay HC orders expedited framing of charges to enable her Bangladesh returnAs per the April 15 verdict, the HC perused earlier court orders disclosing an “unsatisfactory state of affairs” by the Central and state governments, who failed to furnish timely instructions to their lawyers, “resulting in considerable delay in a matter of such sensitivity.”Story continues below this adAdvocate Manisha Jagtap for the Central Government then provided Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for countering cross-border trafficking in persons between India and Bangladesh, along with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two countries for the prevention of trafficking of women and children and enabling their repatriation.The bench observed, “A plain reading of the relevant clauses of the SOP and said format indicates that the victims/girls are required to either obtain consent from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) or secure an order of repatriation from the magistrate.”The High Court then questioned the lawyers as to why an adult victim was required to obtain a magistrate’s order when the Union Ministry of External Affairs had already granted permission for her return and the Bangladesh government, through its Deputy High Commissioner, had issued the requisite travel permit.“None of the counsels were able to point out any specific provision in law mandating such an order from the magistrate,” a bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata observed.Story continues below this adThereafter, it opined that in the present case, the special judge who recorded the victim’s statement would be an “appropriate authority to record ‘No Objection’ and permit her release for repatriation to her home country.” However, the bench added, in other cases, the court granting the victim’s custody to the petitioner NGO shall be competent to give ‘No Objection’ for repatriation.Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Bombay High Court