Sheela vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

Court
Delhi High Court

$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 966/2026
SHEELA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kajal Chandra, Ms.
Hatneimawi, Mr. Ananyay
Bhardwaj and Mr. Suyash
Swarup, Advocates

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State

CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of
regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 24/2025, registered
at Police Station Shastri Park, Delhi for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 137(2)/143(4)/143(7)/61/3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘ BNS ’) and Section 81 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(hereafter ‘ JJ Act ’).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as per prosecution,
are that on 05.06.2025, information was received from one Home
BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

Guard, Sachin, regarding the kidnapping of a 2½-month-old male
child of the complainant Poonam, a beggar residing near Seelampur
Metro Station. The complainant stated that she used to beg at
Seelampur Metro Station along with one lady Devaki, who also used
to beg at the same metro station. She stated that on 04.06.2025, she
had temporarily handed over her infant son to co-accused Devaki
while she had gone to purchase a feeding bottle, during which period
Devaki had allegedly absconded with the child. Despite local
enquiry, examination of CCTV footage and sustained efforts made by
the local police, no clue regarding the accused or the child could
initially be found. Subsequently, the investigation had been
transferred to ATS/Metro, whereafter co-accused Devaki was traced
to District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh through a lead obtained from her
Facebook account and was apprehended on 22.11.2025.
3. During investigation, on 23.11.2025, the supplementary
statement of the complainant was recorded, wherein she disclosed
that one Manju (co-accused) had earlier approached her with offers
of money in exchange for the child. It is alleged that co-accused
Devaki disclosed that she had, at the instance of co-accused Manju,
kidnapped the infant for the purpose of selling him to prospective
buyers seeking a male child. She further revealed that a prospective
client of Manju, namely Bharti, who was desirous of having a baby
boy, had refused to take the child in question after becoming aware
that Devaki was not his biological mother. It is alleged that Devaki
had thereafter continued her efforts to sell the child and had visited
BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

several hospitals and clinics for the said purpose. Thereafter, she had
allegedly contacted co-accused Shirley John, a nursing officer at a
maternity and child care centre at Mandawali, seeking assistance in
arranging adoption of the child.
4. As per prosecution, co-accused Shirley John had conveyed the
said information to her household maid, i.e. the present applicant
Sheela, who had in turn conveyed the same to her brother-in-law
Dheer Singh and his wife Baneeta (co-accused persons), who were
desirous of having a male child since they had four daughters. It is
alleged that the present applicant had thereby acted as a facilitator in
the illegal transfer of the kidnapped child. On 24.11.2025, the child
was recovered from the possession of co-accused Dheer Singh and
Baneeta at Arya Nagar, Delhi. The prosecution alleges that the
recovery and transfer of the child had been facilitated through the
involvement of the present applicant. During investigation, the
mobile phones of the accused persons were seized, and photographs
allegedly depicting the handing over of the child by co-accused
Devaki to Dheer Singh and Baneeta in the presence of the present
applicant were recovered. Except Shirley John, all other accused
persons were arrested in the present case. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed on 13.02.2026 against accused
Devaki, Manju, Dheer Singh, Baneeta, Shirley John and the present
applicant Sheela.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the present
accused/applicant Sheela argues that the applicant has been falsely
BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with
the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that, even as
per the case of the prosecution, the child was not recovered from the
possession of the present applicant. It is further submitted that,
admittedly, the applicant had no role in the alleged kidnapping of the
child. The learned counsel further submits that no money has been
recovered from the present applicant, nor is there any allegation that
the applicant had received any money in connection with the alleged
offence. It is also pointed out that the Investigating Officer has
selectively arrested the present applicant and other accused persons,
while not arresting co-accused Shirley John. It is further argued that
since the applicant was employed at the residence of co-accused
Shirley, she had acted upon and believed the representations made by
her. It is contended that the applicant has been in judicial custody for
the last about five months. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant
be granted regular bail.
6. The learned APP appearing for the State argues that the present
applicant Sheela had acted as an intermediary in the transaction
through which co-accused Baneeta and Dheer Singh had illegally
adopted the trafficked child. It is contended that photographs are
available depicting the handing over of the child to co-accused Dheer
Singh and Baneeta at the clinic, in which the present applicant is also
allegedly visible, and the said photographs have been sent to the FSL
for examination. It is further argued that the applicant Sheela was
working as a household maid for co-accused Shirley John, who was
BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

employed as a nurse at the clinic, and it was the present applicant
who had facilitated the illegal transfer/sale of the child to the co-
accused persons. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, it is
prayed that the bail application be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
applicant as well as the State, and has perused the material available
on record.
8. The allegations in the present case pertain to the kidnapping
and subsequent trafficking of a 2½-month-old infant child. As per the
case of the prosecution, co-accused Devaki had kidnapped the child
and had thereafter attempted to sell him to persons desirous of having
a male child.
9. At this stage, the material placed on record prima facie reveals
that it was the present applicant Sheela who had conveyed the
information regarding the availability of the infant male child to her
relatives, i.e. co-accused Dheer Singh and Baneeta, who were
desirous of having a male child as they already had four daughters.
The child in question was allegedly obtained by them in lieu of an
amount of ₹1,50,000/-. Thus, the present applicant had allegedly
facilitated the illegal transfer/sale of the child.
10. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the main accused is Shirley John and that the present applicant
has no role in the alleged offence, also does not prima facie merit
acceptance at this stage. Though co-accused Devaki, who had
BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

allegedly kidnapped the child, had initially approached co-accused
Shirley John, who was working as a nurse, the child in question was
ultimately recovered from the possession of co-accused Dheer Singh
and Baneeta, who are admittedly relatives of the present applicant
Sheela. Thus, as per the prosecution case, it was the applicant Sheela
who had informed her relatives regarding the availability of the child
and had facilitated the transfer of the kidnapped infant to them.
11. This Court has also been informed that photographs depicting
the handing over of the child have been recovered during
investigation, wherein the present applicant is allegedly visible, and
the said photographs have been sent to the FSL for examination. The
FSL report is yet to be received.
12. This Court also cannot lose sight of the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinky v. State: 2025 INSC 482 , wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that offences relating to
trafficking and illegal sale of children are grave offences having
serious societal impact and are required to be viewed with due
seriousness while considering prayer for bail.
13. Considering the nature of allegations, the manner in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed, the role attributed to the
present applicant in facilitating the illegal transfer of the infant child,
and the fact that the FSL report is still awaited, and charges are yet to
be framed, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the
present applicant at this stage.
BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

14. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.
15. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case
16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 07, 2026/ns
TD

BAIL APPLN. 966/2026 Page 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40