In serious offenses involving child trafficking, bail is likely to be denied to the prime conspirator when there is strong prima facie evidence of their central role and where parity with co-accused who were denied bail exists.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kunal Patel for learned advocate Ms.Priaynka Gupta appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Turpesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11192020250569 of 2025 registered with Dholka Town Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 142(4) and 61(2) of the BNS Act and under Section 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State,and having perused the documents on record including the charge-sheet papers, this Court is dis-inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicant for the following reasons:

i. The offence being very serious, inasmuch as a minor child had been kidnapped for the purpose of trafficking and whereas it would prima facie appear that the present applicant is the main accused, being the prime conspirator and also having been attributed the most serious overt act in the offence.

ii. In this regard, it would appear that the investigation has revealed as regards, the present applicant having entered into a conspiracy, for abducting the child and whereas, as part of the conspiracy, the present applicant had gone to the place where the child was residing with her parents, and had abducted the child, more particularly, the role of the present applicant being that the present applicant had taken the child from the lawful custody of her parents.

iii. The fact of the present applicant having kidnapped the child being noticed in CCTV footage of a nearby shop. It also appears that the present applicant had along with other co-accused had resided at a Hotel at Ahmedabad, that is to state that the incident of kidnapping had taken place in Dholka, whereas the present applicant had travelled to Ahmedabad with the kidnapped child and stayed in a Hotel and whereas the CCTV footages of the Hotel, reveal that part.

iv. It also appears that the present applicant had booked a cab for travelling from her Hotel to a bus stand and she had taken a bus from Ahmedabad to Aurangabad and whereas there are chat details between the present applicant and the co-accused as regard the price that would be fetched for the child.

v. It also appears that the present applicant after reaching Aurangabad had taken