Shirley John vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~122
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 & CRL.M.A. 13447/2026
SHIRLEY JOHN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Rishi Manchanda,
Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Ms.
Kanchan Semwal, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, 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
anticipatory 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. 1671/2026 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. 1671/2026 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 the present applicant 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 the prosecution, the present applicant Shirley John had
conveyed the said information to her household maid, namely Sheela
(co-accused), 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 co-accused Sheela 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 further 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 accused Devaki
to Dheer Singh and Baneeta in the presence of co-accused Sheela
were recovered. Except the present applicant, 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, the present applicant Shirley
John and co-accused Sheela.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the present applicant
Shirley John argues that the applicant is a lady and a public servant,
BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 Page 3 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

who was not arrested by the police during investigation since no
incriminating evidence was found against her. It is contended that the
applicant has fully co-operated with the investigation and has
remained available without fail at every stage of the criminal process.
It is further submitted that the applicant is not in a position to
influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. It is also argued
that, even as per the case of the prosecution, the child was not
recovered from the possession of the present applicant and also that
she had no role in the alleged kidnapping of the child. The learned
senior 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, therefore, prayed that the present applicant be granted
bail.
6. The learned APP appearing for the State, while not disputing
the fact that the present applicant was not arrested during
investigation, opposes the grant of bail to the present applicant. It is
argued that, as per the chargesheet, the present applicant had
informed her maid/cook, co-accused Sheela, about the availability of
the child, whereafter Sheela had conveyed the same to her brother-in-
law Dheer Singh and her husband Dheer Singh, who were desirous of
having a male child as they already had four minor daughters. It is
contended that the present applicant was actively involved in the
trafficking of a 2½-month-old infant child, and being a public servant
and working as a nursing officer at a maternity and child care centre,
BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 Page 4 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

she was well aware of the legal process governing adoption of
children. Despite such knowledge, the applicant was allegedly aware
that the child was not being legally adopted by accused Dheer Singh
and Baneeta, but was instead being illegally transferred/sold in lieu of
an amount of ₹1.5 lakhs. Therefore, it is prayed that the present
application be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the State,
and has perused the material available on record
8. At the outset, though it is not disputed that the present
applicant Shirley John was not arrested during investigation, the
prayer for bail after filing of the chargesheet is nonetheless required
to be considered on its own merits in light of the material collected
during investigation as per the decision of Satender Kumar Antil v.
CBI: (2022) 10 SCC 51 , since the alleged offences in the present case
are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. This
Court also notes that the learned Sessions Court, while rejecting the
prayer for bail, has already expressed its opinion regarding the aspect
of non-arrest of the present applicant during investigation.

9. 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.
10. As far as the material against the present applicant is
BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 Page 5 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

concerned, the prosecution alleges that co-accused Devaki had
approached the present applicant, who was working as a nursing
officer at a maternity and child care centre, seeking assistance in
arranging adoption of the child. As alleged, it was the present
applicant who had, through co-accused Sheela, put co-accused
Devaki in touch with Dheer Singh and Baneeta, who were desirous of
having a male child. The prosecution has also relied upon the call
detail records of the present applicant and co-accused Sheela in
support of the said assertion.
11. This Court has also been informed that certain photographs
recovered during investigation, which have been sent to the FSL for
examination, depict co-accused Dheer Singh, Baneeta and Sheela. As
per the prosecution, the said photographs were taken inside the
office/room of the present applicant Shirley John at the medical care
centre. This Court further notes that the statement of the in-charge of
the said centre has also been recorded under Section 180 of BNSS
during investigation, who has confirmed that the photographs pertain
to the room/office of the present applicant.
12. Prima facie , at this stage, the chain of circumstances, as
projected by the prosecution, appears to be complete, inasmuch as the
kidnapped child was ultimately recovered from the possession of co-
accused Dheer Singh and Baneeta, who are relatives of co-accused
Sheela; co-accused Sheela was admittedly working as a maid with
the present applicant; and it is the case of the prosecution that co-
accused Devaki, who had kidnapped the child, had approached the
BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 Page 6 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

present applicant Shirley seeking assistance in arranging
adoption/sale of the child. The prosecution further alleges that the
child was illegally transferred to Dheer Singh and Baneeta in lieu of
₹1.5 lakhs.
13. 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.
14. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the role
attributed to the present applicant, the material collected during
investigation, and the fact that the FSL report is still awaited, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant at this
stage.
15. Accordingly, the present application, alongwith pending
application, stands dismissed.
16. The applicant is however granted seven days’ time to surrender
before the learned Trial Court.

17. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case
18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 07, 2026/ns/ TD
BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 Page 7 of 7


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40