“Hospital’s Licence Should Be Immediately Suspended If Any Newborn Is Trafficked From There”: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of 13 Accused in Child Trafficking Racket, Orders Trial Within 6 Month
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that the bail orders granted by the High Court to the accused persons in connection with multiple FIRs alleging interstate child trafficking were legally unsustainable and set them aside. The Court directed that all accused persons shall surrender before the concerned committal courts, which shall remand them to judicial custody. It further ordered that the trial courts frame charges and commence trial proceedings on a day-to-day basis to ensure completion within six months. The Court also issued directives to safeguard the interests of the victims and monitor the enforcement of institutional mechanisms against child trafficking.
The appeals arise from various orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad releasing thirteen accused persons on bail in connection with FIR No. 201/2023, FIR No. 193/2023, FIR No. 76/2023, FIR No. 74/2023, and FIR No. 50/2023, respectively registered under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code.
The appeals have been filed by the victims of the crime, specifically the kith and kin of the trafficked children, seeking cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to the thirteen accused persons. In all these appeals, Respondent No. 2 is the individual accused in the respective case.
Despite service of notice, only three accused persons, namely Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal, and Manish Jain, appeared before the Court to oppose the plea for cancellation of bail. Other accused did not appear either in person or through counsel.
Upon completion of the investigation in all three FIRs, chargesheets were filed before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 5, and Chief Judicial Magistrate in District Varanasi. As on the date of hearing, the criminal cases were pending committal to the Court of Sessions. Many of the accused persons, after release on bail, had absconded and their whereabouts were unknown to the police.
FIR No. 193/2023 (Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.) pertains to a complaint initially filed as a missing child report. On 15.05.2023, the complainant discovered that his four-year-old son was missing while sleeping on a pavement. The police report, initially treating the matter as a case of missing child, later developed into an investigation into child trafficking. Based on a tip-off, Santosh Gupta was apprehended on 21.05.2023. In his statement, he disclosed that he and his accomplices stole and sold minor children to childless couples in Rajasthan, Bihar, and Jharkhand for amounts ranging from two to ten lakh rupees.
The statement further mentioned the involvement of Vinay Kumar Mishra, Shikha Modanwal, Mahesh Rana, Sunita Devi, Yashoda Devi, Shivam Gupta, Mukesh Pandit, and others. Two children were reportedly sold to Manish Jain, Paras, Ghanshyam, and Jagbir Baranwal in Jaipur. A vest belonging to the abducted child was recovered during the search. The complainant identified the vest as belonging to his son. The chargesheet was filed on 17.07.2023 under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the IPC. Out of fourteen accused persons, the bail of five had already been cancelled by the Supreme Court in prior proceedings.
Accused persons Sunita Devi, Gudiya Devi, Manish Jain, Mahesh Rana s/o Ramlal Rana, Sangeeta Devi, Anuradha Devi, and Santosh Sao were granted bail by the High Court on various dates between 04.10.2023 and 15.12.2023. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 24.09.2024, set aside the bail orders passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045, and 1046 of 2024. These accused were directed to surrender. On their failure to do so, Miscellaneous Application No. 309/2025 was filed, following which they were arrested after a delay of more than five months. Non-bailable warrants had also been issued by the Court of the CJM, Varanasi.
FIR No. 50/2023 (Samsher Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.) also concerns the same alleged interstate child trafficking network. On 28.03.2023, the complainant’s one-year-old daughter was reported missing. A police complaint was filed on 29.05.2023. Seven accused persons were chargesheeted on 16.09.2023 under Sections 363, 311, and 370 of the IPC. Supplementary chargesheets were filed on 19.03.2024, 05.06.2024, and 12.08.2024. The child was traced and recovered on 20.03.2025 from Anil Prasad Baranwal at Krishna Nagar, Kolkata, West Bengal. Bail orders of three accused persons were challenged before the Supreme Court.
FIR No. 201/2023 (Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.) relates to the abduction of a one-year-old boy named Bahubali on 29.04.2023 while he was sleeping beside his mother. A complaint was lodged at P.S. Cantt., Varanasi, on 30.04.2023. Investigation revealed connections to the trafficking network under FIR No. 193/2023. Accused persons Shikha Gupta and Manish Jain were already arrested in relation to FIR No. 193/2023. On 02.06.2023, based on information from accused Anuradha Devi, joint police teams from Varanasi, Prayagraj, and Mirzapur conducted searches across multiple districts in Jharkhand.
Anuradha Devi disclosed that she had purchased several children through various accused persons, including Manish Jain, Jagveer Baranwal, and Gudiya. She led police to Santosh Sao and Sangeeta Devi, who were found with kidnapped children. The parents identified their children during video calls. The memo of recovery recorded the statements of all present accused, including Gudiya Devi and Jagveer Baranwal, who admitted to involvement in the network. Mobile phones and documents were seized. The accused were taken into custody under Sections 363, 311, and 370 IPC.
Ten accused persons were charge-sheeted under FIR No. 201/2023 on 07.09.2023. The case was pending committal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Varanasi. Bail of three accused persons had been cancelled by the Court in earlier proceedings under FIR No. 193/2023. The legality of bail orders passed by the High Court for the remaining six co-accused was before the Court in the present matter
The Court recorded: “In no circumstances, the High Court could have released Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal & Manish Jain respectively on bail.” The Court stated that the High Court failed to appreciate the seriousness of the accusations and exercised its discretion arbitrarily.
It was observed: “The High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very callous manner. The outcome of this callous approach has ultimately paved way for many accused persons to abscond and thereby put the trial in jeopardy.”
The Court stated: “We are at pains to state that the orders passed by the High Court releasing the co-accused persons on bail are absolutely sketchy and bereft of any cogent reasons.”
Addressing the parameters for bail, the Court observed: “The true test to ascertain whether discretion has been judiciously exercised or not is to see whether the court has been able to strike a balance between the personal liberty of the accused and the interest of the State, in other words, the societal interests.”
The Court recorded: “The manner in which the High Court has gone about deciding the bail applications in a routine manner without even referring to the relevant materials on record is disturbing.”
The judgment further stated: “Liberty and law, liberty and justice, liberty and common good must go hand in hand. Liberty is not a one-sided concept nor does it permit an individual to take law into his own hands.”
It was noted: “While considering an application for bail, the Court has to consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, the character of the evidence and reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence or fleeing from justice.”
The Bench recorded: “We may not be understood to have observed that bail should be refused in every case of serious offence. However, we do say that while considering the question of grant of bail, the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed are relevant considerations.”
On the absence of accused, the Court recorded: “The accused persons have not only failed to appear before the trial court for framing of charge, but even after issuance of NBWs, they did not appear, ultimately leading to an application being filed in this Court seeking appropriate directions.”
Referring to the factual conduct, it was observed: “We take notice of the fact that the accused persons, after being released on bail, have absconded and their whereabouts are not known to the police.”
Addressing the failure of the prosecution to act, the Court stated: “The State unfortunately has exhibited no seriousness worth the name. It is only after repeated directions that some action was taken.”
The Court quoted earlier precedent: “The grant of bail though discretionary in nature, yet such discretion must be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The discretion is not unfettered or unregulated.”
It also cited: “Unlimited and unqualified liberty cannot be said to be in favour of societal interest.” The Bench recorded that “individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society.”
Referring to conduct of certain accused, the Court observed: “One of the accused, Santosh Sao, admitted in his voluntary statement that he purchased a one-year-old male child from Anuradha Devi for ₹4,00,000 because he wanted a son.”
It further recorded: “Anuradha Devi stated that she had purchased and sold several children through various agents, including Madan Baranwal, Jagveer Baranwal, Manish Jain, Ghanshyam, and Gudiya.”
On systemic deficiencies, the Court observed: “The present case brings to light how traffickers have adapted to technology and networked communication, making the rescue and prosecution effort more complex.”
The Court examined the BIRD Report submitted to the NHRC, quoting several findings: “NCRB Data shows that during 2019, about 3.80 Lakh persons were traced missing and out of them, about 2/3rd were females. Out of total missing persons, a significant number of persons could not be traced out and remained missing. This shows that a large proportion of missing persons particularly women were forced into sexual exploitation trade.”
It also quoted: “Most of the trafficked respondents (80.7%) were from economically weaker sections i.e., BPL families (50.3%), AAY-Antyodaya Anna Yojana (30.4%) (Poorest of Poor) hailing from Rural & Semi-urban areas.”
The Court referred to its earlier decision in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244, and noted: “This Court took note of the fact that large amounts were being demanded by ill-equipped and sometimes even undesirable organisations or individuals camouflaging trafficking and sale of children as inter-country adoption.”
It stated: “This Court, in consultation with several social and child welfare institutions, laid out a comprehensive framework of normative and procedural safeguards for regulating inter-country adoption.”
The Bench referred to Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 616, observing: “...in case of every missing child reported; there will be an initial presumption of either abduction or trafficking, unless, in the investigation, the same is proved otherwise.”
The Court recorded: “Child selling is not new to this country. There was a time when children were being sold as part of inter-country adoptions and this Court had passed detailed judgments acknowledging the same.”
It also referred to statutory provisions: “The JJ Act, 2015 is a secular Act which specifies in Section 58(1) that any person irrespective of religion can adopt a child.”
On the issue of systemic response, the Court noted: “AHTUs are not fully operative and dedicated to Human Trafficking and in many districts of India, AHTUs have not been established so far.”
The Court observed: “The police are burdened with so many responsibilities as there are vacancies in police stations. Hence, they are reluctant as they cannot investigate the entire chain which crosses over three to four states.”
On the role of law enforcement, it stated: “Corruption, pressure from superiors/politicians and lack of review mechanism force the officers in non-reporting of incidents.”
The Court concluded its observations by stating: “The present case is not an isolated one. There is a growing trend that children are kidnapped and then trafficked for sale under the garb of adoption.”
It clarified: “All the observations made hereinabove touching the merits of the case are purely prima facie in nature and confined only to the adjudication of the issues involved in the present batch of appeals. The trial court shall decide the criminal cases strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment.”
The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders granted by the High Court in favour of the accused persons named in the appeals. It directed that all such accused must surrender before the respective committal courts within one week from the date of the judgment. If any of the accused fail to do so, the State Police has been directed to secure their presence and produce them before the court concerned.
The Court instructed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Varanasi and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, District Varanasi to commit all three criminal cases—arising from FIR Nos. 193/2023, 50/2023, and 201/2023—to the Sessions Court within two weeks. Once committed, the Sessions Court has been ordered to frame charges and conduct the trials on a day-to-day basis, with a clear mandate to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of framing charges.
In the event that any of the accused are found to be absconding or not appearing despite service of non-bailable warrants, the trial court has been directed to issue proclamations under Section 82 CrPC and initiate proceedings for attachment of their properties under Section 83 CrPC. Further, the trial court has also been directed to invoke Sections 174A and 229A of the IPC against any accused persons who deliberately fail to appear.
To ensure effective prosecution, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint three Special Public Prosecutors, each with at least ten years of experience in conducting criminal trials. Their names are to be submitted to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad within one week of the judgment.
In view of the threats faced by victims and their families, the Court ordered the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi to personally monitor and ensure adequate police protection to witnesses. The police must prevent any attempts at intimidation, inducement, or harassment by the accused.
The Court also directed the State Police to locate and apprehend all accused persons who had absconded. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh for necessary action.
The Court directed the State Government to ensure that all trafficked children are admitted to schools in accordance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It stated that no school should deny admission on grounds such as lack of formal identity or residence proof.
Additionally, the District Magistrate, Varanasi was directed to extend full support and rehabilitation to the trafficked children and their families. This support should include financial assistance, housing, and counselling services as applicable under government schemes and welfare policies.
Addressing broader systemic reform, the Court ordered that the recommendations from the BIRD Report, which had been submitted to the National Human Rights Commission and discussed in the judgment, be circulated to all State Governments through the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Union Government is required to file a status report on this directive within four months.
The Court further directed that all High Courts monitor the progress of trials involving child trafficking and missing children, and initiate measures to reduce procedural delays. High Courts were advised to develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in collaboration with State Governments for tracking trafficking patterns and implementing witness protection mechanisms.
For widespread compliance and awareness, the Registry of the Supreme Court was instructed to forward copies of this judgment to Registrars General of all High Courts, Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, as well as to the Director of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal. Copies were also directed to be sent to the Director of NALSA, and the Chairpersons of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Women (NCW).
The case was scheduled to be listed again in the second week of October 2025 to assess compliance with the above directions.
The Investigating Officer was also directed to appear personally before the Court on 21.04.2025 to present an action plan prepared by the Uttar Pradesh Police to identify and dismantle child trafficking gangs operating in the state.
In conclusion, the judgment served as a public warning to private hospitals, nursing homes, and diagnostic centres. The Court made it clear that any establishment found complicit in trafficking of infants under the guise of adoption or abandonment would face cancellation of licences and criminal prosecution under applicable laws. The Court also issued an advisory to parents across the country to remain vigilant, particularly in public places such as railway stations, religious gatherings, and transportation hubs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Advocate and Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate
Case Title: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 482
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4658 of 2025)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
[Read/Download order]
