Anticipatory bail denied in child trafficking case involving illegal sale under the guise of adoption.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 24/2025 involving the kidnapping and trafficking of a 2½-month-old infant.

On 04.06.2025, the infant was kidnapped by co-accused Devaki from the complainant near Seelampur Metro Station.

Investigation revealed that Devaki sought to sell the child and contacted the applicant, Shirley John, a nursing officer at a maternity centre.

The applicant allegedly facilitated the illegal transfer of the child through her maid (co-accused Sheela) to a couple (Dheer Singh and Baneeta) for ₹1.5 lakhs.

While the applicant was not arrested during the investigation and a chargesheet was filed on 13.02.2026, the prosecution alleged her active involvement in the conspiracy.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail post-filing of the chargesheet despite being a public servant and not having been arrested during the investigation.

2. Whether the gravity of the offence involving child trafficking outweighs the considerations for bail based on the applicant's status and cooperation.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing bail for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years as established in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, holding that bail must be considered on merits post-chargesheet regardless of non-arrest during investigation.

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Pinky v. State (2025) INSC 482, which categorizes child trafficking as a grave offence with serious societal impact requiring stringent scrutiny during bail proceedings.

The charges were framed under Sections 137(2), 143(4), 143(7), 61, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The Court reasoned that the chain of circumstances against the applicant appeared prima facie complete. It noted that the kidnapped child was recovered from the relatives of the applicant's maid, and call detail records suggested a link between the parties.

Crucially, the prosecution presented evidenced that photographs of the illegal handover were taken inside the applicant’s private office/room at the medical centre, a fact confirmed by the centre's in-charge under Section 180 of the BNSS.

The Court emphasized the applicant’s role as a nursing officer, noting that despite her professional knowledge of legal adoption processes, she allegedly facilitated an illegal sale for financial gain.

The Court found that the gravity of the social evil (trafficking) and the pending FSL reports necessitated the denial of bail, regardless of her cooperation with the police thus far.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within seven days.