Dunki Route Trafficking Racket: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Bail in ₹36 Crore Illegal Immigration Scam

Case Name: Gagandeep Singh v. National Investigation Agency & Anr. connected with Shubham Sandhal @ Deep Hundi v. National Investigation Agency

Date of Judgment: 24.03.2026

Citation: CRA-D No.1617 of 2025 along with CRA-D No.91 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ramesh Kumari

Held: The High Court held that offences involving organized human trafficking and illegal immigration through the “Dunki route” have serious international ramifications and cannot be treated as simple cheating cases. Compromise with the complainant does not dilute the gravity of such offences, and the accused are not entitled to bail.

Summary: The appeals were filed against the rejection of regular bail by the Special Judge, NIA, in a case involving illegal immigration and human trafficking. The prosecution case revolved around a large-scale racket wherein victims were duped of huge sums on the pretext of being sent abroad and were then routed illegally through multiple countries to the United States.

The complainant alleged that he paid approximately ₹45 lakhs to the accused for being sent to the USA but was instead taken through the “Dunki route” via several countries, where he was harassed, assaulted, and ultimately deported . The investigation further revealed that the accused were part of an organized network involving foreign associates (“Donkers”) who facilitated illegal border crossings.

The NIA contended that the case was not an isolated instance of cheating but part of a large-scale human trafficking racket involving over 150 victims and transactions exceeding ₹36 crores . Bank records and financial trails indicated substantial monetary transactions through accounts linked to the accused, including hawala transactions and payments routed to foreign handlers.

Statements of numerous witnesses corroborated the modus operandi, wherein victims were promised legal migration but were instead sent through dangerous and illegal routes, often facing exploitation, detention, or deportation. The Court noted that the evidence included financial records, digital communications, and consistent witness testimonies pointing towards a coordinated trafficking network.

The defence argued that the case was essentially one of cheating, that there was compromise with the complainant, and that investigation was complete. However, the Court rejected these submissions, observing that the scale and nature of allegations elevated the matter beyond a private dispute.

Decision: The High Court dismissed both appeals and refused to grant regular bail to the appellants. It held that:

• The allegations disclose an organized human trafficking racket with international implications.
• The gravity of offences and the scale of operations outweigh considerations for bail.
• Compromise with the complainant is irrelevant in offences affecting society at large.

The Court also directed expeditious trial and issuance of necessary steps to ensure presence of prosecution witnesses.