Bail Denied in Child Trafficking Case Where Accused Facilitated Illegal Sale and Transfer of Infant

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the bail application

It also directed

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

The Court clarified that this observation was limited to the bail stage and not an expression on the merits of the trial

01Facts

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 24/2025 involving the kidnapping and trafficking of a 2½-month-old male child

p. 1

On June 4, 2025, the child was allegedly kidnapped by co-accused Devaki from the biological mother, a beggar at Seelampur Metro Station

p. 2

Investigation 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

p. 3

The applicant then allegedly facilitated the illegal sale of the child for ₹1,50,000 to her brother-in-law, Dheer Singh, and his wife

p. 3, 5

The child was recovered from their possession on November 24, 2025

p. 3

Digital evidence, including photographs of the child being handed over in the applicant's presence, was seized

pp. 3-4

The applicant has been in custody since approximately December 2025

p. 4

02Issues

i.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

p. 5

03Law 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

p. 1

It 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

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137 Section 143 Section 61 Section 3

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 81

04Reasoning

The Court observed that while the applicant did not physically kidnap the child, she played a pivotal role as an intermediary and facilitator

p. 5

The 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

pp. 5-6

The 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

p. 6

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the existence of incriminating photographs depicting the illegal handover in the applicant's presence

p. 6

Given 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

p. 6