Facts
The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 24/2025 involving the kidnapping and trafficking of a 2½-month-old male child
Source reference: p.1On June 4, 2025, the child was allegedly kidnapped by co-accused Devaki from the biological mother, a beggar at Seelampur Metro Station
Source reference: p.2Investigation revealed a conspiracy to sell the infant to buyers seeking a male child. Co-accused Shirley John, a nursing officer, allegedly informed her maid (the applicant, Sheela) about the child's availability
Source reference: p.3The applicant then allegedly facilitated the illegal sale of the child for ₹1,50,000 to her brother-in-law, Dheer Singh, and his wife
Source reference: p.3, 5The child was recovered from their possession on November 24, 2025
Source reference: p.3Digital evidence, including photographs of the child being handed over in the applicant's presence, was seized
Source reference: p.3-4The applicant has been in custody since approximately December 2025
Source reference: p.4Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Juvenile Justice Act, considering her role as a facilitator in child trafficking
Source reference: p.5Law Applied
The court applied Sections 137(2), 143(4), 143(7), 61, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Source reference: p.1It further relied on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in Pinky v. State (2025 INSC 482), which mandates that offences involving the trafficking and illegal sale of children are grave crimes with serious societal impact and must be viewed with stringency during bail considerations
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The Court observed that while the applicant did not physically kidnap the child, she played a pivotal role as an intermediary and facilitator
Source reference: p.5The child was recovered from the applicant’s own relatives, specifically because she had signaled the child’s "availability" to them to satisfy their desire for a male heir
Source reference: p.5-6The Court rejected the defense that the applicant was merely following her employer's instructions, noting that the recovery of the child from her family members prima facie established her active involvement
Source reference: p.6Furthermore, the Court highlighted the existence of incriminating photographs depicting the illegal handover in the applicant's presence
Source reference: p.6Given the Gravity of the offence and the fact that the FSL report for the digital evidence was still pending and charges were yet to be framed, the Court found the applicant's role too significant to warrant release
Source reference: p.6Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the bail application
The Court held that the nature of the allegations, the specific role of the applicant in facilitating the sale of a kidnapped infant, and the pending scientific evidence outweighed the period of custody served
Source reference: p.6-7The Court clarified that this observation was limited to the bail stage and not an expression on the merits of the trial
Source reference: p.7Original Court PDF
SheelavsState (Nct Of Delhi)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in