Supreme Court Cancels Bail in 'Shocking' Inter-State Child Trafficking Racket, Slams Allahabad High Court's 'Callous' Orders Under S.370 IPC. - 2025-07-07

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in 'Shocking' Inter-State Child Trafficking Racket, Slams High Court's 'Callous' Approach

New Delhi: In a scathing judgment addressing a "shocking and painful" inter-state child trafficking racket, the Supreme Court of India has cancelled the bail granted to 13 accused persons by the Allahabad High Court. A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala condemned the High Court's "callous manner" in granting relief and issued a slew of sweeping directions to fast-track the trial, ensure victim protection, and tackle the nationwide menace of child trafficking.

The Court emphasized that individual liberty cannot be elevated to a level that jeopardizes societal interest and allows "contagious crimes" to become an "epidemic."

---

Case Overview: A Well-Oiled Trafficking Network

The case involves a series of FIRs filed in Uttar Pradesh (Varanasi, Prayagraj, Mirzapur) concerning the kidnapping of young children, some as young as one year old, from impoverished families living on streets and pavements. Initial missing person reports soon unraveled a large, organized trafficking ring operating across Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan.

The network involved individuals who would kidnap children and sell them through a chain of intermediaries to childless couples for sums ranging from ₹40,000 to ₹10 lakh. The investigation revealed a sophisticated modus operandi where traffickers, including a nurse, used smartphones to circulate photos of children and coordinate sales.

The appeals for bail cancellation were filed by the victims' families after the Allahabad High Court granted bail to numerous accused persons between October 2023 and August 2024. The Supreme Court noted with dismay that many of the accused absconded after their release, derailing the trial proceedings.

---

Arguments Before the Court

Appellants' (Victims') Submissions: Ms. Aparna Bhat, senior counsel for the victims, argued that the High Court had fundamentally erred by undermining the gravity of the crime. She pointed out that the accused were part of an organized syndicate, and granting them bail would allow them to continue their nefarious activities. She highlighted the shocking involvement of a nurse, Anuradha Devi , and others who exploited their positions to facilitate trafficking.

State's Submissions: The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the victims' plea, informing the Court that many of the bailed-out accused had absconded and were not appearing for committal proceedings, effectively putting the trial in jeopardy.

Respondents' (Accuseds') Submissions: Counsel for the accused, including Santosh Sao and Manish Jain , argued for parity, noting that other co-accused had been granted bail. They claimed their clients were not named in the initial FIRs and that the case against them was based on co-accused statements. Santosh Sao was portrayed as a poor father of four daughters who merely "purchased" a male child, while Manish Jain 's counsel argued that no child was recovered from his possession.

---

Court's Scathing Analysis and Reasoning

Justice J.B. Pardiwala , authoring the judgment, systematically dismantled the reasoning of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on factors like the accused not being named in the FIR, parity with co-accused, and the "bail is a rule, jail is an exception" maxim was misplaced given the facts.

The Court observed: > "Considering the serious nature of the crime and the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons we are of the view that the High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused persons. We are sorry to say but the High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very callous manner."

On Balancing Liberty and Societal Interest: The judgment extensively quoted legal philosophy and precedents on liberty, stating that it is a "regulated freedom" and cannot be used to "bring in anarchy or disorder in the society." The Court held that in cases of organized and heinous crimes like child trafficking, the larger interest of society must be protected.

> "The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised."

On the Role of the Accused: The Court found prima facie evidence against the key accused. It termed Manish Jain a "kingpin" and noted that a trafficked child was recovered from Jagveer Baranwal 's custody. It rejected the plea of Santosh Sao , who purchased a child for ₹4 lakh, stating he was "equally responsible" as his desire for a male child fueled the trafficking market.

---

Final Decision and Sweeping Directions

The Supreme Court set aside all the impugned bail orders and directed the accused to surrender immediately. Recognizing the systemic failures, the Court issued a comprehensive set of directions, including:

Expedited Trial: Committal of cases to the Sessions Court within two weeks and completion of the trial within six months on a day-to-day basis.

Special Prosecutors: Appointment of three special public prosecutors by the State.

Absconding Accused: Immediate steps to issue non-bailable warrants and separate the trial of absconding accused to avoid delays.

Victim Protection: Police protection for victims and their families.

Child Welfare: Ensuring the rescued children are admitted to schools under the Right to Education Act.

Nationwide Action: Directing all State Governments to implement the recommendations of a 2023 NHRC-commissioned report on human trafficking.

High Court Monitoring: Directing all High Courts to call for data on pending child trafficking trials and issue circulars for their disposal within six months.

In a concluding message, the Court made a heartfelt appeal to parents to remain vigilant, describing the pain of losing a child to trafficking as "worst than death." The matter is listed again in October 2025 to monitor compliance.