MUMBAI, April 25 -- A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on Friday refused to discharge Sudarshan Valmik Darade in a transnational human trafficking-cum-cyber fraud case, holding that the prosecution record disclosed "more than sufficient material" to frame charges against him and his role "reveals prominently from the voluminous evidence". Special judge Chakor S Baviskar declined to drop the proceedings against Darade, observing that at the discharge stage, the court was not to conduct a "mini trial" and "prima facie satisfaction. is enough" to proceed. Material accompanying the charge sheet must be taken "as it is" and cannot be discarded merely because the accused labels it false, the judge clarified. The case, registered at the Vile Parle police station in March 2024 and later taken over by the NIA, alleges a cross-border syndicate lured hundreds of Indian youths with overseas job offers, routed them via Thailand into Laos on tourist visas, and forced them to run online investment and crypto scams. Victims were allegedly made to befriend targets on social media to induce investments that could not be withdrawn. Friday's order recorded allegations of coercion in the case: victims who resisted were threatened, confined without food, beaten, and made to pay around $2,000 for release; some accounts spoke of electric shocks being administered for non-compliance. Several victims eventually contacted the Indian embassy in Vientiane before returning to India and triggering the FIR, the order said. While Darade claimed that he was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated later, the court held that these factors, even if accepted, were "not enough to discharge the accused". The court accepted the prosecution's case that his role surfaced during the investigation and pointed to specific material against him, such as emails from a foreign national identified as the company owner directing recruitment and correspondence and contracts signed by Darade "in his capacity of CEO" of the Laos-based Long Sheng Company. "If. he is not at all concerned. he should not have received any of such mails. [nor] signed the employment contracts on behalf of the company as CEO," the court observed. "This shows his strong involvement in the company and all business of the company"....