New Delhi: A court recently dismissed the fourth bail plea of Kamran Haider, arrested in 2025 for allegedly trafficking young Indian men to Southeast Asian countries for cybercrime operations run through fake call centres.Special judge Munish Markan noted Haider’s “active role” in escorting victims from Bangkok and handing them over to foreign-run, Chinese-controlled entities, adding that victims had testified to paying him lakhs upon arrival.Originally from Jasola, Haider had allegedly trafficked young men to countries like Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, etc., where they were “forced to work as cyber criminals” in Chinese companies. In his plea, Haider claimed parity with co-accused Sahil, who was granted bail last Dec after spending 15 months in custody and was described as a partner in his company, Ali International.The court dismissed the argument, observing that Sahil’s case stood on a “different footing” as he appeared to be largely an employee of the company. “Allegations against Kamran are regarding having active role in actually taking the victims from Bangkok and handing them over to foreigners in Chinese-controlled companies for forcibly making them work as cyber criminals,” the judge noted.Opposing the plea, the prosecution submitted that the trial was progressing swiftly, with 18 of the 54 witnesses already examined, and cited Haider’s earlier bail rejections on merits.The court observed that the victims were lured with promises of jobs in “billing and computer operations” in countries like Thailand. Depositions of three victims shed further light on the racket. They were taken to Laos via Thailand and “were sold in Golden Triangle Area of Laos and were asked to create fake Facebook profiles in the name of girls and send friend requests to different countries and after maintaining the contacts, the victims had to induce them to invest money in cryptocurrency”, the court noted.Holding that there was “sufficient material on record” against Haider, the court denied him bail, also noting a pending case against him before an NIA court and the risk of him fleeing the judicial process.
