IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Rajinder - Appellant
Versus
The State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail APPL No. 1953 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of facts leading to bail application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments of appellant versus state prosecution (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of facts and evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's reasoning against bail application (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. conclusion of the court's decision (Para 23) |
| 6. final order and instruction on judgment upload (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The applicant Rajinder has preferred this application seeking grant of regular bail in FIR bearing no.121/2024, registered at Police Station Begumpur, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 370(4), 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter "IPC"] and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [hereafter "JJ Act"].
2. Brief facts of the case are that a PCR call vide DD No. 74A dated 20.02.2024 was received at P.S. Begumpur regarding alleged trafficking of children and noise of weeping from a neighbour's house. On the statement of the complainant, Laxmi Mehta, the present FIR was registered. The complainant stated that in the opposite house, two women, a man and two children were residing, and that she had often seen them with different newborn babies of about 20–25 days, despite none of the women being pregnant, which aroused suspicion. On 20.02.2024 she heard the cries of a child and also overheard a girl talking on the phone mentioning “5.80 or 4.80” while the child continued crying. She, along with the landlord and neighbours, went upstairs to enquire, where the women gave evasive replies. Thereafter, she called the police, who upon arrival questioned the women, who disclosed their names as Priya and Devki, and further revealed that they were engaged in the business of buying and selling children alongwith co-accused Sangram.
3. As per status report, during investigation, a newborn girl child of about 10-20 days was found in the custody of Priya (aged 24 years) and Devika @ Devki (aged 56 years), both residents of Begumpur, Delhi. They were arrested, and during interrogation, disclosed that they had been engaged in trafficking of newborn babies for the past 3-4 years with the help of present accused Rajinder and co-accused Simranjeet Kaur, who used to supply babies from Punjab for further sale. Subsequently, the present applicant i.e. Rajinder, and other co-accused persons i.e. Piyush Aggarwal, Simranjeet Kaur, Raman, Pooja, Binder Kaur and Paramjeet @ Pamma were also arrested. Co-accused Sangram however could not be arrested and proceedings against him under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated.
4. The prosecution case is that the present applicant Rajinder, along with Simranjeet Kaur (an ASHA worker), Binder Kaur (a nurse), and others used to target parents who were poor, illiterate or vulnerable. They projected themselves as well-settled couples desirous of adoption, and with the assistance of co-accused Raman and Pooja, procured signatures of biological parents on blank notary papers under the pretext of completing adoption formalities. The children were thereafter sold to the highest bidders.
5. During investigation, two couples came forward to claim the recovered girl child and stated that they were assured their child would remain in a nearby town and be raised in a good household. Further, from CDR analysis, the present applicant was found in contact with the co-accused persons. During his arrest, blank notary papers with signatures and mobile phones were recovered from him. Further, with the permission of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), blood samples were collected for DNA fingerprinting, which confirmed that the biological parents of the recovered child were Lekh Singh and Paramjeet Kaur. Presently, the child is in the custody of CWC and has been named "Shivangi."
6. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the concerned Court on 20.05.2024. Eventually, co-acc
Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Co-Operative Bank Employees Union
The court held that organized child trafficking constitutes a severe offense under relevant Indian laws, and the applicant's actions represent exploitation of vulnerable parents and newborns.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 370 of IPC, emphasizing the wide definition of 'exploitation' and the seriousness of offences involvi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence of exploitation for a conviction under Section 370(5)/34 of the IPC.
Absence of exploitation renders trafficking charges unsustainable under IPC, as per judicial precedents.
The sufficiency of evidence for framing charges under criminal law requires strong suspicion, and detailed evidence appreciation is not necessary at the stage of framing charges.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused in case of inconsistencies and la....
The court ruled that consent from the victim and her mother negated the exploitation element necessary for trafficking under Section 370 IPC, justifying the granting of anticipatory bail.
The prosecution must prove the unlawful custody for kidnapping; mere assumption of intent without evidence is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.