Offences ‘Involving Trafficking Of New-Born Children’ Pose Serious Threat To Public Order: Delhi High Court Quashes Bail of Women In Child-Trafficking Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ajay Digpaul has cancelled the bail of two women accused of participating in a wide-reaching inter-state network that, according to the prosecution, enabled the sale and transfer of newborn infants for financial gain. The Court held that the trial court had overlooked the seriousness of the alleged trafficking operation and the investigative material indicating the respondents’ roles in coordinating or receiving infants moved through a chain of intermediaries. Finding that their release posed risks to witnesses and the ongoing probe, the Court set aside the earlier bail orders and directed both respondents to surrender within seven days, noting that the allegations reflect an organized system of illicit infant procurement and distribution.
The matter arises from an FIR registered on 08.04.2025 at Police Station Uttam Nagar after police received information about an alleged inter-state network involved in obtaining newborn infants from families in Rajasthan and Gujarat and moving them to Delhi for unlawful transactions. During a police operation near Uttam Nagar East Metro Station, three individuals were apprehended, and a five-day-old infant was recovered. Subsequent interrogation led investigators to identify additional persons said to be involved in sourcing infants from rural areas and coordinating their transfer through intermediaries.
Also Read: Provident Fund Dues Supersede Secured Creditor’s Claims Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court
Over the following weeks, police carried out arrests in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi, recovering two more infants and collecting mobile phones, call detail records, WhatsApp chats, financial transaction data, and video material. DNA samples of the recovered children and biological parents were sent for forensic examination. Eleven persons were named in the charge sheet, while two remained absconding.
The State alleged that two women played significant roles—one in arranging funds, coordinating communication, and directing the movement of infants, and the other in receiving children supplied through the network. The State contended that both had destroyed mobile phones and remained in contact with other accused. The respondents argued that the allegations relied mainly on disclosure statements, that no direct recovery was made from them, and that the investigative material did not substantiate the claims against them.
The Court recorded that the investigation, charge-sheet, witness testimonies, and disclosure statements “on a prima facie reading, both these respondents form part of an interstate child trafficking syndicate, operating between Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi.” It noted that the material indicated “a deliberate, systematic and profit-driven trade in human infants, sourced from extremely poor families and sold to willing buyers through a network of intermediaries.”
Regarding the role of the first respondent, the Court stated that she “acted as one of the core members who coordinated between suppliers… and end-buyers or recipients.” The Court noted assertions of “mobile phone data, WhatsApp chats, and call detail records reportedly establish active communication with several co-accused” and the allegation that she destroyed her phone.
As to the second respondent, the Court recorded that she was “alleged to have purchased two infants supplied through” the other accused, and that “both children were subsequently recovered” from third parties. The Court noted that the investigation “thus directly connects” her with the alleged trafficking.
The Court stated that: “The offences alleged are of grave and heinous nature, involving trafficking of new-born children, which not only endangers the rights and dignity of the infants but also undermines the social fabric. Such offences are categorically treated as serious threats to the public order and moral conscience of society.”
It observed that the Trial Court had failed to adequately consider “the nature and gravity of the offence, the modus in which the offence was committed, and the possibility to influence the witnesses and the likelihood of tampering with the evidence.”
The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions and extracted portions, noting that bail is a discretionary remedy requiring “a calibrated assessment of the nature and seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence or witnesses.” It included the principle that “an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court.”
It found that the case involved “an extensive conspiracy stretching across state borders,” and that the investigation remained ongoing for absconding accused and an untraced infant. It recorded that the respondents were alleged to be “repeat offenders and habitual participants in this illicit trade” and stated that the prosecution’s apprehension regarding influence on witnesses “cannot be said to be unfounded.”
The Court held that the bail orders were “mechanically passed, and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of bail in offences of such gravity.” It concluded that the orders suffered from “non-application of judicial mind, rendering them unsustainable.”
The Court stated that “both the petitions are allowed and the impugned bail orders dated 22.07.2025… and 30.07.2025… are set aside. The regular bails granted to respondents… are cancelled forthwith.”
“The respondents are directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within seven (7) days from the date of this order,” and added that “failing which the learned ASJ shall take appropriate coercive steps to secure their custody in accordance with law.”
“Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the merits of the trial, and all observations… are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petitions. In view of the fact that the matter alleges involvement of a mechanized crime syndicate, which is running at inter-State level and that the crime involves trafficking of infants, this Court finds it prudent to direct the learned Trial Court for expeditious trial.”
“The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State with Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocate, with SI Rakesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Rajpal, Advocate; Mr. Nishant Anand, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate
Case Title: State NCT of Delhi v. Bimla & State NCT of Delhi v. Pooja
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9637
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 6327/2025 & CRL.M.C. 6328/2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Digpaul
