Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Sapra, AOR Ms. Lalima Das, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Gopal Krishna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mrs. Nikita Jaju, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate General Mr. Gunjan Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankit Khurana, Adv. Mr. Farhan Khan, Adv. Mrs. Farha Khan, Adv. Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, Adv. For M/s. S & S Legal, AOR Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR Ms. Sangeeta Singh, AOR Mr. Purna Chandra Patnaik, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv.

What is the test or criteria for grant of bail in interstate child-trafficking cases as laid down by the Supreme Court in this judgment? What are the directions issued to cancel bail and remand accused to custody in the case of the child-trafficking racket, and under what circumstances were bail orders set aside? What are the recommended systemic protections and reforms (e.g., AHTUs, CWCs, victim/witness protection) to address trafficking and improve prosecutions, as endorsed by the Court?

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.

What is the test or criteria for grant of bail in interstate child-trafficking cases as laid down by the Supreme Court in this judgment?

What are the directions issued to cancel bail and remand accused to custody in the case of the child-trafficking racket, and under what circumstances were bail orders set aside?

What are the recommended systemic protections and reforms (e.g., AHTUs, CWCs, victim/witness protection) to address trafficking and improve prosecutions, as endorsed by the Court?