Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Pinki – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4658 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1928 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 592 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1929 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 590 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1930 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4660 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4661 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1932 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) 4662 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1933 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4664 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4665 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1935 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4666 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1936 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4667 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1937 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4668 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4670 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1939 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4671 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1940 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) 4672 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1941 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4673 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1942 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4674 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1943 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4675 of 2025], Criminal Appeal No. 1944 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) 4676 of 2025]
Decided On : 15-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India – Article 23 – Child trafficking – Over the years, demands for adoption of children have increased and there is a significant waiting period for prospective parents to adopt – At any given point in time, there are parents waiting for at least 3-4 years to adopt – Even after being processed and children being matched, necessary verification processes also take a long time – Such long delays have created increase in demand for children who are declared legally fit for adoptions, and has consequently attracted trafficking of children for the purpose of adoption – Trafficking in persons in India has taken diverse forms and almost each of them is prevalent across the country – What is of concern is rapid spread of problem with previously unknown factors getting embedded in web of traffickers – Changing trafficking patterns have brought along changes in traffickers, their modus operandi, their manipulation of victims and their understanding of limitations in criminal justice system – Traffickers are operating with impunity and have deftly adapted to advances in technology using it to their benefit. (Paras 13 and 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3)] – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Child trafficking case – Trafficking for forced criminality is rising at alarming levels since traffickers have realised protections offered to children in juvenile justice system in many jurisdictions – A protection mechanism for children is exploited as a safe haven for committing heinous crime – In present set of cases, cognizable offence is made out at outset with kidnapping of children, multiple transactions of sale of children ultimately handing over custody illegally – Bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning – Liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on mind of a person – Incarceration creates concavity in personality of an individual – Sometimes it causes sense of vacuum – However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law an individual is expected to grow within social restrictions sanctioned by law – Individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law – Concept of liberty is not in realm of absolutism but is a restricted one – Cry of collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. (Paras 25, 29, 55 and 62)
(C) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3) [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2)] – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Child trafficking case – Case pertains to an interstate child-trafficking racket which profits from kidnapping, buying and selling of minor children, especially those children who come from impoverished background – Individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in society – Prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilised milieu – Huge gang is dangerously operating within and outside Delhi and is selling trafficked infants and children in different States for sums ranging from Rs. 5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/- – Some of accused persons who have been arrested are habitual offenders – High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favour of accused persons – These accused persons are a big threat to society wherever they are in country – Impugned orders of bail passed by High Court set aside – Two months’ time granted to State Police to trace out all those accused persons who have absconded and are on run – If any newborn infant is trafficked from any hospital, immediate action against hospital should be suspension of licence to run hospital over and above other actions in accordance with law – When any lady comes to deliver her baby in any hospital, it is responsibility of administration of hospital to protect newborn infant in all respects. (Paras 63, 64, 66, 67, 79, 81 and 91)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been filed by victims of crime, more particularly kith and kin of children who came to be trafficked, praying for cancellation of bail granted by High Court to accused persons. In all these appeals respondent no. 2 is particular original accused. Case was registered for offence punishable under Sections 363, 311 and 370(5) of IPC. Out of 14 accused persons, bail of 5 accused persons have already been cancelled by Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
Observations made by this Court are prima facie in nature and not expressions of any final opinion. Guilt or innocence of accused shall be determined by trial court strictly on the basis of evidence, direct or indirect, that may come on record during the course of the trial. Trial court shall not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court.
Result : Appeals allowed. Directions issued.
Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) The case concerns bail in interstate child-trafficking offences under IPC 363, 311, 370(5) and grants/revocation of bail by High Court; Supreme Court emphasizes that bail should not be granted as a matter of course in such cases. - (!) (!) (!) The Court set aside High Court bail orders for several accused and directed surrender; Bail cancellation/intervention when absconding or when serious crime is involved. - (!) (!) (!) Observes that trafficking is a grave crime requiring judicious exercise of bail; cites Bachpan Bachao and general bail principles (nature of offence, likelihood of tampering, risk to witnesses, etc.). - (!) (!) (!) Directs frames charges and expedited trial, with absconding accused to be secured; trial to be conducted in a time-bound manner. - (!) (!) Directs appointment of special prosecutors and protection of victims/witnesses; tracing absconded accused within two months. - (!) (!) Mandates education/reintegration for trafficked children and payment of compensation; adherence to Right to Education obligations. - (!) (!) Reiterates need for coordination and data reporting to address missing children and inter-state trafficking; references Cri-MAC platform and NHRC/BIRD recommendations.
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:
| INDEX | |
| (A) | FACTUAL BACKGROUND |
| (i) FIR No. 193/2023 (in Sanjay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) | |
| (ii) FIR No. 50/2023 (in Samsher Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) | |
| (iii) FIR No. 201/2023 (in Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) | |
| (B) | CHILD TRAFFICKING |
| (i) Global Context | |
| (ii) Child Trafficking in India | |
| (iii) Missing Children and Trafficking | |
| (C) | ROLE OF EACH OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS |
| (D) | ORDER PASSED BY COORDINATE BENCH IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3997 OF 2024 & ALLIED APPEALS CANCELLING BAIL GRANTED TO SOME OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS |
| (E) | GRANT OF BAIL BY THE HIGH COURT |
| (F) | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| (i) Submissions on behalf of the Appellants | |
| (ii) Submissions on behalf of accused persons; Santosh Sao and Jagveer Baranwal | |
| (iii) Submissions on behalf of accused; Manish Jain | |
| (iv) Submissions on behalf of the State | |
| (G) | ANALYSIS |
| (i) Broad Principles for Grant of Bail | |
| (H) | CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are identical, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. These appeals arise from various orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad releasing 13 accused persons on bail in connection with FIR No. 201/2023, FIR No. 193/2023, FIR No. 76/2023, FIR No. 74/2023 and FIR No. 50/2023 respectively registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 311 and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code (for short the “IPC”).
4. These appeals have been filed by the victims of the crime, more particularly the kith and kin of the children who came to be trafficked, praying for cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to the 13 accused persons referred to above. In all these appeals the respondent no. 2 is the particular original accused.
5. Although notice has been served to each of the accused persons, yet only three accused, namely, Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal & Manish Jain appeared before this Court for the purpose of opposing the plea for cancellation of bail. The others have thought fit not to appear either in person or through an advocate, to oppose these appeals seeking cancellation of bail.
6. We take notice of the fact that upon completion of investigation of all the three First Information Reports referred to above, chargesheets came to be filed in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate District Varanasi, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 5 District Varanasi and Chief Judicial Magistrate District Varanasi respectively.
7. The criminal cases, as on date, are pending for committal to the Court of Sessions. We also take notice of the fact that many of the accused persons, after being released on bail, have absconded and their whereabouts are not known to the police.
(A) FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Before we proceed further, we must give a fair idea as regards the three FIRs:
(a) The present case pertains to an interstate child-trafficking racket which profits from kidnapping, buying and selling of minor children, especially those children who come from an impoverished background. The appellant, Sanjay is a rag picker residing in Varanasi. He was sleeping on the pavement with his wife and four-year-old son, Rohit. On the morning of 15.05.2023, they woke up to find that their son was missing. Initially, the police report indicated that the complaint filed by the appellant was one of a missing child, however, further investigation revealed that the case was one of child-trafficking as detailed in the Memo of Recovery in 193/2023 as follows:
“Today on 21/05/2023, I, Inspector incharge, Ramakant Dube with my companion SI Prakash Singh, SI Prab
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
