-
by sayum
18 May 2026 10:09 AM
“Callousness In Granting Bail Has Enabled Accused To Abscond, Putting Trial In Jeopardy”- Supreme Court of India cancelling the bail granted to several individuals accused in a horrifying case of interstate child trafficking. The case relates to a network allegedly operating across Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Delhi, where children — some just days old — were abducted and sold for amounts ranging from ₹40,000 to ₹10,00,000.
The Court observed that the High Court granted bail mechanically, without appreciating the gravity of the offence or the systemic risk posed by the accused. The top court further held that the “callous approach on the part of the High Court” resulted in the accused absconding, stating:
“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 not only quashed the bail orders but also issued far-reaching directions to ensure swift trial, victim rehabilitation, and nationwide monitoring of child trafficking cases.
“The Liberty Of Some Must Not Involve The Oppression Of Others”
The case arose from a missing child complaint — FIR No. 193 of 2023 — involving a 4-year-old boy. As the investigation unfolded, the case was reframed as one involving Section 370(5) IPC, exposing a widespread child trafficking racket. The police eventually filed charge sheets against 14 accused under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) IPC, uncovering operations spanning multiple states.
The accused, some of whom include healthcare professionals, had been granted bail on various dates from October to December 2023. The petitioners, including the mother of the trafficked child, challenged these orders in the Supreme Court, arguing that the gravity of the offence was ignored and that the accused were likely to repeat the crime if released.
The Supreme Court held: “Liberty cannot stand alone but must be paired with virtue and morality… Liberty would not always be an absolute licence but must arm itself within the confines of law. In other words, there can be no liberty without social restraint.”
"The Nature Of The Crime Cannot Be Overlooked In Bail Jurisprudence"
Citing a slew of precedents including Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Prahlad Singh Bhati, Brijmani Devi, and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, the Court reiterated the principle that grant of bail in serious offences must reflect a balance between individual liberty and public interest.
“While considering an application for bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record.”
Specifically referring to the accused Santosh Sao, the Court rejected the argument that his financial background or desire for a son mitigated his culpability:
“The desire of Santosh Sao is one of the unfortunate illustrations of the evil that men do… The extent to which people go to have a male child… They do not hesitate to purchase a trafficked child at the cost of causing pain, agony and immense trauma to the biological parents.”
Similarly, the Court found Manish Jain to be a “key player in the organized interstate child trafficking racket”, allegedly coordinating the sale of trafficked minors across regions.
“There is prima facie evidence on record to indicate that he actively managed the illegal operations… coordinating the sale and purchase of trafficked children.”
The Court also rejected the contentions of Jagveer Baranwal, noting that a child was retrieved from his custody during a sale negotiation, despite denials of professional involvement.
"The State Exhibited No Seriousness Worth The Name"
The Court came down heavily on the State of Uttar Pradesh, observing that its failure to challenge the High Court’s bail orders and to ensure custody of the accused reflected a complete lack of seriousness:
“We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the State handled the situation. Why did the State not do anything for all this period of time?”
The judgment cited disturbing findings from a Times of India report published on 14 April 2025, detailing ongoing child trafficking operations involving hospital thefts of newborns, sale of infants to childless couples, and suspected complicity of medical professionals.
Key Directions Issued By Supreme Court
The Court not only set aside the bail orders but also passed a comprehensive set of directions, including:
“All the accused persons are directed to surrender before the committal court… the committal court shall remand them to judicial custody.”
“The concerned trial court shall proceed to frame charge within one week and complete the trial within six months… preferably on day-to-day basis.”
“The State Government shall provide police protection to the victims and their families pending trial.”
“Rescued children must be admitted to schools as per the Right to Education Act, 2009.”
“The High Courts shall collect data on pending child trafficking trials and issue circulars to expedite those trials within six months.”
The Court also directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to file a detailed affidavit on trafficking statistics and the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units nationwide, following an earlier order in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 43 of 2024.
“There Can Be No Liberty Without Social Restraint”
The Court concluded its 93-page judgment with a powerful reaffirmation of the duty of the judiciary to balance personal freedom with the larger societal good:
“Unlimited and unqualified liberty cannot be said to be in favour of societal interest… The liberty of each citizen is borne of and must be subordinated to the liberty of the greatest number.”
Referring to Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court stated: “Liberty must be paired with responsibility… and must function within the confines of law. If liberty be regarded a social order, the problem of establishing liberty must be a problem of organising restraint.”
Final Directions and Compliance Oversight
The Registry was instructed to circulate the judgment to: “All High Courts and State Governments… including the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Women and Child Development.”
The matter will be relisted in October 2025 to assess compliance. The Police Officer handling the TOI-reported case was directed to appear before the Court on 21 April 2025.
A Word Of Caution From The Bench To Society
In its parting remarks, the Court issued a heartfelt appeal to parents: “When the child dies, the parents may with passage of time resign to the will of the Almighty… but when the child is lost and not found, they suffer the pain and agony for the rest of their life. It is worse than death.”
Date of Decision: 15th April 2025
