$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13.01.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 4007/2025 BABLI GUPTA ALIAS SUDHA GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Insp. Shubham Chaudhary Special Staff SED. CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral

1. By way of this application, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 366/2025, registered at Police Station Sunlight Colony, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 137(2)/143(4)/3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter „BNS‟).

2. Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 22.08.2025, the complainant Suresh, a brick labourer, while travelling with his wife and four children to Behror, Rajasthan, was compelled to stay at ISBT Sarai Kale Khan due to lack of funds, and during the night, his six-month-old son Prem had gone missing from Platform No. 2 while the family was asleep, leading to the registration of the present FIR under Section 137(2) of BNS at P.S. Sunlight Colony. During investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage and technical analysis, co-accused Veerbhan and Kalicharan were identified and apprehended, who disclosed that the kidnapped child was sold through one Rambaran and further trafficked through Sundar Singh to Krishna and Preeti, from whose illegal custody the child was recovered on 25.08.2025 at Rajnagar, Agra. Further investigation revealed the involvement of an organised gang engaged in illegal child trafficking, resulting in the recovery of six trafficked children, including Prem, and the arrest of several accused persons. It is alleged that the present applicant Sudha Gupta @ Babli Gupta, in conspiracy with co-accused Sundar Singh, had facilitated the trafficking of two children and received money in lieu thereof, leading to the addition of further offences i.e. Sections 143(5)/111/61(2)/238(B) of BNS and Sections 80/81 of the Juvenile Justice Act were added.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the prosecution story is false, fabricated, and based on concocted disclosure statements, with no independent incriminating material connecting the applicant to the alleged child trafficking racket. It is argued that the applicant is neither named specifically in the disclosure statements, and even her correct name is Babli Gupta, not Sudha Gupta, as reflected in her Aadhaar card. The learned counsel further contends that no child has been recovered from the applicant, there is no other material such as telephonic record to link the applicant with co-accused persons, and the mobile phone seized by the I.O. does not reveal any incriminating communication. It is also urged that the applicant is a woman of about 50 years of age, and is suffering from various medical ailments. It is submitted that the applicant is ready to join the investigation, and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

5. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the bail application and argues that there is sufficient material on record to connect the present applicant with the organised child trafficking racket. It is contended that there are at least three disclosure statements implicating the applicant, which reveal her active involvement in conspiracy with the co-accused in the kidnapping, confinement, and illegal trafficking of minor children. It is also argued that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the full extent of the trafficking network, and identify other possible victims as well as apprehending ot