-
by sayum
07 April 2026 2:35 PM
“While liberty is sacrosanct, it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes the seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.” - In a strongly worded judgment, the Delhi High Court on November 3, 2025, setting aside bail granted to two women accused in a deeply disturbing inter-state child trafficking network. The Court, speaking through Justice Ajay Digpaul, castigated the trial court for ignoring well-established legal principles and granting bail in a routine manner, despite grave allegations involving the sale and purchase of newborn babies for profit.
The High Court held that the bail orders dated 22.07.2025 (in favour of Bimla) and 30.07.2025 (in favour of Pooja) were passed in “complete disregard” of the gravity of the offence and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pinki v. State of U.P.
Refusing to treat the bail orders as harmless errors, the Court observed:
“The orders are, on the face of it, mechanically passed and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of bail in offences of such gravity. The exercise of discretion, in the facts of the present case, is found to be arbitrary and unsustainable in law.”
“Infants Were Not Given in Adoption – They Were Trafficked” – Defence of Adoption Rejected at Bail Stage
“The assertion that this is a case of adoption cannot overshadow the allegations of child trafficking and the supportive material found during investigation.”
One of the most controversial arguments raised by the respondents—particularly Pooja—was that the infants were not trafficked, but merely “adopted” by willing families. The High Court dismissed this line of defence outright, holding that such a claim was irrelevant at the bail stage, particularly when weighed against the systemic and profit-motivated operation revealed during investigation.
The Court held that the role attributed to Pooja, including arranging funds, coordinating transfers, and maintaining direct links with the buyers, made her central to the syndicate’s functioning. The purported adoption deeds, according to the Court, cannot by themselves negate “serious allegations supported by circumstantial, digital, and testimonial evidence.”
Justice Digpaul noted:
“The argument stands rejected. The veracity of the said assertion and the documents, if any, regarding the same are yet to be established and cannot override the material gathered in investigation.”
“Destruction of Mobile Phones and Money Transfers Reveal Consciousness of Guilt” – Digital Trail Exposes Child Sale Network
The Court examined in detail the digital footprint and financial records recovered during the investigation. Both Pooja and Bimla were alleged to have destroyed their mobile phones to prevent recovery of incriminating data. However, Call Detail Records (CDRs) still revealed sustained contact between the accused and other syndicate members.
Pooja was found to have exchanged 29 calls with Bimla, over 50 calls with co-accused Saroj using multiple numbers, and regular WhatsApp messages with Anjali—who had previously been arrested by the CBI in another child trafficking case. In addition, video footage showing Bimla sitting beside a man holding one of the trafficked infants was recovered from a co-accused's phone, further linking her to the final delivery of babies.
The Court noted:
“The alleged destruction of phones showed consciousness of guilt... The CDRs, WhatsApp chats and money trail collectively form a chain of prima facie circumstantial evidence.”
In one instance, a transfer of ₹10,000 was made to Pooja by a co-accused just before a child was handed over. Additional payments of ₹9,000 and ₹1,100 followed. The location of Pooja’s device was traced to the same place and time as the handover—7:00 PM—further substantiating her involvement.
“Trial Court Ignored Public Interest and Risk of Witness Tampering” – Supreme Court’s Bail Parameters Sidestepped
“The learned ASJ failed to appreciate the evidentiary material on record, the serious nature of the offences, and the larger implications on public interest and administration of justice.”
The High Court found that both bail orders failed to consider crucial legal tests outlined by the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad and Pinki, including the potential for:
Justice Digpaul drew attention to the role of both respondents in an “organized, profit-driven syndicate,” and criticized the trial court’s reliance on the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, observing that:
“Filing of charge sheet is not the sole test for grant of bail... especially in offences that affect vulnerable sections of society and have wider ramifications.”
The judgment in Ashok Dhankad was quoted extensively:
“While liberty is a constitutional value protected under Article 21, it must not be interpreted in a way that undermines the seriousness of heinous crimes or erodes public confidence in the justice system.”
“Organized Racket of Infant Trafficking Demands Heightened Judicial Vigilance” – High Court Flags Structural Exploitation
The Court’s findings unveiled a deeply rooted criminal network operating across Delhi, Gujarat, and Rajasthan, where babies from poor rural families were procured for ₹1–1.5 lakhs, and sold in Delhi for profit. Each syndicate member had a clearly defined role, from scouting families to arranging funds and final handovers.
The judgment recorded:
“The modus operandi... indicates 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.”
The prosecution highlighted that some accused—Komal Verma and Prabhu—remain absconding, and not all infants have yet been traced. DNA tests and FSL reports are still pending, and the trial is at an early stage.
Under these circumstances, the Court ruled that continued liberty to key accused may compromise not only the fairness of trial, but also the ability to recover missing children.
In a rare but categorically stern judgment, the Delhi High Court has reinforced that bail in cases involving grave, organized crimes like child trafficking must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Courts must balance personal liberty against the rights of vulnerable victims and the public interest in an untainted criminal process.
The Court concluded:
“The impugned bail orders do not demonstrate any analysis of the specific role of either respondent, the gravity of the offence, or the possibility of interference with witnesses. The orders merely observe that the charge sheet has been filed, which cannot suffice in an offence of this magnitude.”
Accordingly, the bail orders were set aside, and both respondents were directed to surrender within 7 days, failing which the trial court is to initiate coercive action.
The trial court has also been directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously, acknowledging the seriousness of the crime and its inter-state scope.
Date of Decision: November 3, 2025
