Infant trafficking case: Delhi High Court denies bail, flags selective arrests and directs DCP to rescue child

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 293/2024, Police Station Nangloi, registered under Sections 370/34 IPC and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Gayatri impersonated themselves as husband and wife, took an infant girl in adoption, and thereafter sold her to co-accused Deepika, who further transferred the child to another person.

The petitioner claimed approximately two and a half years’ incarceration, completion of examination of all public witnesses, false implication, and parity with co-accused Deepika, who had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner was visible in photographs accepting custody of the infant.

The allegedly trafficked child had not been recovered or rescued, and the alleged principal accused, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur, had not been arrested.

Whether the petitioner, accused of participating in the alleged trafficking and sale of an infant girl, was entitled to regular bail considering the gravity of the offence and the material against him.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Deepika.

Whether the selective non-arrest of co-accused Dr. Kulvinder Kaur justified granting bail to the petitioner.

The Court applied Sections 370 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning trafficking and acts done in furtherance of common intention, and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, concerning sale and purchase of children.

In deciding bail, the Court treated the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the prima facie material against the accused, and the welfare and safety of the trafficked child as decisive considerations.

The Court further held that selective arrest by the investigating agency is impermissible and must be deprecated, but the failure to arrest another accused does not, by itself, require the Court to grant bail to the applicant.

Bail on parity is available only where the role and circumstances of the co-accused are materially comparable.

The Court found that the alleged offence involved the trafficking and repeated transfer of an infant, causing serious and lasting psychological harm to the child.

The petitioner was prima facie connected with the transaction because he was visible in photographs accepting custody of the infant in the presence of her biological parents, while he admittedly no longer had custody of her.

The Court considered the non-recovery of the child particularly serious and held that the gravity of the alleged offence could not be diluted merely because the police had failed to arrest Dr. Kulvinder Kaur.

The claim of parity was rejected because Deepika’s bail had been granted on distinct grounds and she was not visible in the photographs accepting the infant.

Although the Court criticised the selective arrest of the accused, that criticism did not outweigh the prima facie case and the continuing failure to rescue the child.

It directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned DCP to examine the issue of selective arrest.

The DCP was directed to ensure the earliest rescue of the allegedly trafficked child and to file a status report within four weeks.

The order was also directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for immediate communication to the petitioner.