'Inter-Country Organised Crime Of Extracting, Harvesting Organs': Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Organ Trafficking Case

Justice C. S. Dias stated that there is prima evidence showing his involvement in organ trafficking such as evidence of call data records and monetary transactions that establish his connection with the prime accused who is absconding. The Court said:

“The accusations depict a serious cross-border crime warranting an in- depth investigation. On considering the deep-rooted tentacles of the crime and the vast network of the accused, this Court has no doubt that the matter needs to be investigated by the National Investigation Agency, especially since national security is involved and innocent persons are being trafficked to a foreign country for organ harvesting.”

The petitioner is accused of being involved in trafficking kidneys from financially disadvantaged individuals. According to the allegations, donors were transported from India to Iran under the promise of receiving 6 lakh rupees in exchange for donating their kidneys. It is further claimed that the petitioner arranged for the organs to be removed in Iran and subsequently transplanted to patients in India.

Additionally, it is alleged that the petitioner deceived and exploited the donors by failing to fulfill the promised payment after their organs were removed. It is alleged that the patients in need of kidneys deposited money to the petitioner's bank account who retransferred it to an account owned by a medical tourism organization called Stemma Club of the first accused.

The present bail application was filed by the third accused who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 370 (trafficking of persons) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(a)(b)(c) & (d) (punishment for commercial dealings in human organs) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.

The Counsel for petitioner denied the allegations and stated that he had only given his bank details to his childhood friend who was the first accused. It was argued that he was merely retransferring some amounts that were deposited in his account. It was stated that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and was not benefitting from the proceeds of the crime.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application stating that the petitioner was involved in organ trafficking. It was submitted that the investigation might be handed over to the National Investigating Agency for investigation since the accused persons were influential and have international connections.

It was submitted that giving bail to the accused could impact the ongoing investigation, citing evidence connecting him to the first accused who was absconding. It was argued that the accused should not be released on bail since he was part of a human organ trafficking racket under the guise of medical tourism.

The Court found that some persons had transferred money to the petitioner's bank account who retransferred it to Stemma Club's bank account. It also noted that there were call data records establishing the petitioner's contact with several persons.

The Court stated that there was reportedly a gap between the objectives of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and its implementation. It stated that the Act aims to curb commercial organ dealings which is widespread due to high demand for human organs.

It stated that prima facie there is evidence showing the involvement of the petitioner in the crime warranting further investigation.

The Court thus dismissed his bail application. It said: “Considering the facts and the materials placed on record and comprehending the grave nature of the cross-border crime, the prima facie materials that establish the petitioner had monetary transactions and frequent mobile phone communications with the first accused, who is absconding, and the investigation into the crime is only at a nascent stage, I don't find any convincing ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The application is meritless and is only to be dismissed.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate M Vivek, Reneeta Vinu

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor C S Hrithwik

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 442

Case Title: Sajith Shyam v State of Kerala

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 4939 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Order