# Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 482
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pinki-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-anr-38878
- **Pages:** 94

## Headnote

Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting
bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious
nature of child trafficking.
Headnotes†
Bail - Cancellation of - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.363, 311,
370(5) - Kidnapping; Child trafficking - Interstate childtrafficking rackets - High Court granted bail to 13 accused
persons allegedly involved in such cases involving interstate
trafficking of minor children on a large scale - Challenge to,
by the victims of the crime, the kith and kin of the children
trafficked:
Held: High Court while releasing the accused persons on bail
took into consideration the aspects like the accused were not
named in the FIR; names of the accused were disclosed by a
co-accused; victim was not recovered from the custody of the
accused; similarly situated co-accused were granted bail; no
material evidence regarding tampering of evidence or intimidating
of witness in previous criminal cases; bail is a rule, jail is an
exception - Considering the serious nature of the crime and the
modus operandi adopted by the accused persons, the High Court
should not have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused
persons - High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very
callous manner which ultimately paved way for many accused
persons to abscond putting the trial in jeopardy - 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 - Impugned bail orders
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
523
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
passed by the High Court set aside - Conduct of the State in not
challenging the orders of bail, deprecated - Accused persons to
surrender before the committal court which shall remand them
to judicial custody - Further directions issued to the trial court,
State Government - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[Paras 38, 67, 68, 78, 79]
Directions by Supreme Court - Pending trials relating to child
trafficking, to be completed within six months:
Held: High Courts to call for the necessary information as regards
the status of the pending trials relating to child trafficking - Once
each of the High Court collects the necessary data as regards the
status of the trials, a circular be issued on administrative side to all
the concerned trial courts to complete the trials within six months
from the date of the circular and if need be, by conducting the trials
on day-to-day basis - Each of the High Courts to forward a report
to this Court as regards the compliance of the directions contained
in the circular - Non-compliance of directions or any laxity of any
nature in that regard on the part of any of the authorities shall be
viewed very strictly and if need be, they shall be proceeded for
contempt. [Para 81 (l), (m)]
Bail - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Principles for grant
of bail in cases of serious nature vis-à-vis cancellation
of bail because of supervening circumstances/bail order
being perverse or based on irrelevant considerations; nonconsideration of relevant factors - Distinction - Individual
liberty vis-à-vis larger social interest - Discussed - Concept
of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted
one. [Paras 53-60, 62-64]
Directions by Supreme Court - Child trafficking - Directions
issued to State Governments to implement the recommendations
of Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD)
made in its report on Human Trafficking:
Held: All the State Governments across the country directed to look
into the report of BIRD dated 12.04.2023 on Human Trafficking more
particularly the recommendations, on effective law enforcement
and prosecution - All the State Governments directed to study
524
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the entire report and i

## Text

_Characters 0–39,512 of 185,985. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39512 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 522 : 2025 INSC 482
Pinki
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025)
15 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting
bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious
nature of child trafficking.
Headnotes†
Bail - Cancellation of - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.363, 311,
370(5) - Kidnapping; Child trafficking - Interstate childtrafficking rackets - High Court granted bail to 13 accused
persons allegedly involved in such cases involving interstate
trafficking of minor children on a large scale - Challenge to,
by the victims of the crime, the kith and kin of the children
trafficked:
Held: High Court while releasing the accused persons on bail
took into consideration the aspects like the accused were not
named in the FIR; names of the accused were disclosed by a
co-accused; victim was not recovered from the custody of the
accused; similarly situated co-accused were granted bail; no
material evidence regarding tampering of evidence or intimidating
of witness in previous criminal cases; bail is a rule, jail is an
exception - Considering the serious nature of the crime and the
modus operandi adopted by the accused persons, the High Court
should not have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused
persons - High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very
callous manner which ultimately paved way for many accused
persons to abscond putting the trial in jeopardy - 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 - Impugned bail orders
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
523
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
passed by the High Court set aside - Conduct of the State in not
challenging the orders of bail, deprecated - Accused persons to
surrender before the committal court which shall remand them
to judicial custody - Further directions issued to the trial court,
State Government - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[Paras 38, 67, 68, 78, 79]
Directions by Supreme Court - Pending trials relating to child
trafficking, to be completed within six months:
Held: High Courts to call for the necessary information as regards
the status of the pending trials relating to child trafficking - Once
each of the High Court collects the necessary data as regards the
status of the trials, a circular be issued on administrative side to all
the concerned trial courts to complete the trials within six months
from the date of the circular and if need be, by conducting the trials
on day-to-day basis - Each of the High Courts to forward a report
to this Court as regards the compliance of the directions contained
in the circular - Non-compliance of directions or any laxity of any
nature in that regard on the part of any of the authorities shall be
viewed very strictly and if need be, they shall be proceeded for
contempt. [Para 81 (l), (m)]
Bail - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Principles for grant
of bail in cases of serious nature vis-à-vis cancellation
of bail because of supervening circumstances/bail order
being perverse or based on irrelevant considerations; nonconsideration of relevant factors - Distinction - Individual
liberty vis-à-vis larger social interest - Discussed - Concept
of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted
one. [Paras 53-60, 62-64]
Directions by Supreme Court - Child trafficking - Directions
issued to State Governments to implement the recommendations
of Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD)
made in its report on Human Trafficking:
Held: All the State Governments across the country directed to look
into the report of BIRD dated 12.04.2023 on Human Trafficking more
particularly the recommendations, on effective law enforcement
and prosecution - All the State Governments directed to study
524
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the entire report and implement each of the recommendations by
working out appropriate modalities in that regard. [Para 81 (j), (k)]
Trafficking of newborns from hospitals - Suspension of licence
of the hospital:
Held: If any newborn infant is trafficked from any hospital, the
immediate action against the hospital should be suspension
of licence to run the hospital over and above other actions in
accordance with law - When a baby is delivered in any hospital, it
is the responsibility of the administration of the hospital to protect
the newborn infant in all respects. [Para 91]
Child trafficking - Globally and in India - UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, 1989 (CRC); The Hague Convention
on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 1993; Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational
Organised Crime; UN Special Rapporteur's Report on the sale
of children, child prostitution and child pornography, 2016;
U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959) - Reasons
for increase in cases of child trafficking globally - Constitution
of India - Article 23 - Prohibition of traffic in human beings
and forced labour - Central Adoption Resource Authority -
Adoption a long-drawn process, traffickers taking advantage
of increased demand for children. [Paras 10-28]
Child trafficking - Need for parents to be vigilant and careful -
Word of caution. [Para 90]
Case Law Cited
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India [1984] 2 SCR 795 : (1984)
2 SCC 244; Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.
[2011] 5 SCR 353 : (2014) 16 SCC 616; Bachpan Bachao and
Ors. v. UOI and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4613; Gudikanti
Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh [1978] 2 SCR 371 : (1978) 1 SCC 240; Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr. [2001] 2 SCR 684 : (2001) 4 SCC 280;
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [2002] 2 SCR 526 :
(2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004)
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
525
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
7 SCC 528; Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2021] 10
SCR 188 : (2021) 17 SCC 220; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2019]
14 SCR 529 : (2020) 2 SCC 118; Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar
[2021] 9 SCR 533 : (2022) 4 SCC 497; Pappu Kumar v. State of
Bihar (2021) SCC OnLine Pat 2856; Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar
(2021) SCC OnLine Pat 2857; Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of
Rajasthan and Another (2022) 3 SCC 501; Ash Mohammad v.
Shiv Raj Singh [2012] 7 SCR 584 : (2012) 9 SCC 446; Kartar
Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 2 SCR 375 : (1994) 3 SCC 569 -
referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/34/55
(Dec. 22, 2016); Charlie Custer, Kidnapped and Sold: Inside
the Dark World of Child Trafficking in China, The Atlantic (July
25, 2013); John C. Nimmo, The Works of the Right Honourable
Edmund Burke: A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,
vol. 4 (London); Quentin Skinner, The Paradoxes of Liberty, The
Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Harvard Univ., Oct. 24-25,
1984 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India; Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009; Societies Registration Act, 1860.
List of Keywords
Child trafficking; Kidnapping; Interstate child-trafficking rackets;
Child-trafficking rackets; Human trafficking; Child-kidnapping
rackets; Missing children and trafficking; Buying and selling of
minor children; Trafficking in persons; Trafficking; Trafficking in
children; Trafficking process; Traffickers; Cancellation of bail;
Trafficking of newborns from hospitals; Personal liberty; Deprivation
of liberty; Adoption; Illegal adoption; Trafficking of children for
the purpose of adoption; Sale of children; Inter-country adoption;
Maltreatment or exploitation of children; Legally free for adoption;
526
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Abduction; Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development
(BIRD); Rule of law; Bail is a rule, jail is an exception; Exploitation
using threat; Coercion, abduction, fraud, deceit, abuse of power
or vulnerability; Societal interests; Tampering of evidence; UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (CRC); The Hague
Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect
of Inter-country Adoption, 1993; Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; UN
Convention against Transnational Organised Crime; UN Special
Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography, 2016; U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child
(1959); Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA); Child Welfare
Committee; National Human Rights Commission; National Legal
Services Authority; Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila Evam
Bal Samman Kosh; Compensation to the victims under Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1927 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 47159 of 2023
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934,
1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944
of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv., Mayank Sapra, Ms. Lalima Das,
Ms. Karishma Maria, Gopal Krishna.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Mrs. Sujata Upadhyay, Mrs.
Nikita Jaju, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ishwar Chand Roy, Utkarsh
Dwivedi, Purna Chandra Patnaik, Prashant Kumar, Gunjan Kumar,
Akshay Sahay, Farhan Khan, Md Shahid Anwar, , Kamlesh Kumar
Mishra, Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
527
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3
i.
FIR No. 193/2023 (in Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr.) ........................................................................
3
ii.
FIR No. 50/2023 (in Samsher Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr.) .........................................................
8
iii. FIR No. 201/2023 (in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr.) ........................................................................
9
B.
CHILD TRAFFICKING
15
i.
Global Context ..............................................................
15
ii.
Child Trafficking in India ...............................................
19
iii. Missing Children and Trafficking ..................................
25
C.
ROLE OF EACH OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS ............
47
D.
ORDER PASSED BY COORDINATE BENCH IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 3997 OF 2024 & ALLIED APPEALS
CANCELLING BAIL GRANTED TO SOME OF THE
ACCUSED PERSONS .....................................................
60
E.
GRANT OF BAIL BY THE HIGH COURT ........................
61
F.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ...................................
62
i.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants ......................
62
ii.
Submissions on behalf of accused persons; Santosh Sao
and Jagveer Baranwal ...........................................
63
iii. Submissions on behalf of accused; Manish Jain ..........
64
iv. Submissions on behalf of the State ............................
65
G.
ANALYSIS ............................................................................
66
i.
Broad Principles for Grant of Bail ..............................
70
H.
CONCLUSION ..................................................................
80
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
528
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1.
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2.
Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are identical,
those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed
of by this common judgment and order.
3.
These appeals arise from various orders passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad releasing 13 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
for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 311 and 370(5) of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, the "IPC").
4.
These appeals have been filed by the victims of the crime, more
particularly the kith and kin of the children who came to be trafficked,
praying for cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to the
13 accused persons referred to above. In all these appeals the
respondent no. 2 is the particular original accused.
5.
Although notice has been served to each of the accused persons,
yet only three accused, namely, Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal &
Manish Jain appeared before this Court for the purpose of opposing
the plea for cancellation of bail. The others have thought fit not to
appear either in person or through an advocate, to oppose these
appeals seeking cancellation of bail.
6.
We take notice of the fact that upon completion of investigation of all
the three First Information Reports referred to above, chargesheets
came to be filed in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate
District Varanasi, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.
5 District Varanasi and Chief Judicial Magistrate District Varanasi
respectively.
7.
The criminal cases, as on date, are pending for committal to the
Court of Sessions. We also take notice of the fact that many of the
accused persons, after being released on bail, have absconded and
their whereabouts are not known to the police.
A.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8.
Before we proceed further, we must give a fair idea as regards the
three FIRs.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
529
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
i.
FIR No. 193/2023 (in Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr.).
a)
The present case pertains to an interstate child-trafficking
racket which profits from kidnapping, buying and selling of
minor children, especially those children who come from
an impoverished background. The appellant, Sanjay is a
rag picker residing in Varanasi. He was sleeping on the
pavement with his wife and four-year-old son, Rohit. On
the morning of 15.05.2023, they woke up to find that their
son was missing. Initially, the police report indicated that
the complaint filed by the appellant was one of a missing
child, however, further investigation revealed that the case
was one of child-trafficking as detailed in the Memo of
Recovery in 193/2023 as follows:
"Today on 21/05/2023, I, Inspector incharge,
Ramakant Dube with my companion SI Prakash
Singh, SI Prabhakar Singh, SI Shivam Shrivastav,
Constable Mrityunjay Prasad, Constable
Shivnand in Government Jeep No. UP 65 AG
0882 with driver constable Mahender Patel,
departed from Police Station for prevention
of crime, night patrolling in search of wanted
criminals, were present at the Kamachha
crossing. That we received an information
via an informer that the video regarding child
kidnapping which was viral on social media, a
person involved in kidnapping of the said child
is heading towards garbage place on the way of
Nawab Gan and could be caught if immediate
action is taken. Believing this information,
informed the fellow officials about this and
after proper search of each other, reached
the garbage place along with the informer and
hidden ourselves behind garbage place and
started waiting for the arrival of that man. After
some time, a person was seen coming from
the Ujala Hospital side. The informer pointed
towards this man saying that he is the man who
has stolen the child and went away from there.
530
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
We police officials were waiting for that person to
come closer. On coming more closer, we caught
him immediately using all the necessary force.
The caught person after being searched and
enquired about his name and address stated
his name as Santosh Gupta son of Tulsi Gupta
resident of Sinduriya Pokhari Shivdaspur, Police
Station Manduadih, age 42 years. When he
was searched, then a Samsung keypad mobile
no. 9260964142, IMEI 357116099227517/
357117099227515 was found from right pocket
of his pant and two notes of 50-50 rupees each
were found from left pocket of his pant. On strict
interrogation he stated that we have a gang. We
steal small children and sell them in Rajasthan,
Bihar, Jharkhand to childless couples with the
help of our agents for two lakhs to ten lakhs
and the amount received in equally distributed
among us. On 14/05/2023 night at about 03:00
o'clock I and my accomplice Vinay Kumar Mishra
son of late Rajesh Kumar Mishra resident of
Sinduriya Pokhari, Police Station Manduadih,
Varanasi stole a 4 year child sleeping in with a
husband-wife on the road near Ram Chander
Shukla crossing, took him in an Ertiga car
vehicle no. UP 65 ER 5183 and kept him with
my accomplice Sikha Modanwal wife of Sanjay
Modanwal resident of Sinduriya, Shivdaspur,
Manduadih Varanasi. We sell them with the help
of agents who are already connected with us.
I have sent the Ertiga Car vehicle No. UP 65
ER 5183 to Rajasthan to sell the child. I have
removed the vest of the child whom we stole from
Ram Chandra Shukla crossing and has kept it
at my house and kept him with Shikha making
him wear other clothes. Then we kept the child
with our companions Mahesh Rana resident of
District Kodarma, Jharkhand, Yashoda Devi wife
of Mukesh Pandit resident of District Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand, Sunita Devi wife of Mahesh Rana
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
531
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
District Giridih Jharkhand and Mukesh Pandit,
who help me to steal and sell the children and
my son Shivam Gupta used to be with us in
stealing and selling the children. Few days
ago, we stole a Small Girl from Chowkaghat, a
boy from under Alopibagh Over bridge, a boy
and a girl from near Vindhyachal Station and a
small boy from Nadesar and a small girl from
Nagwa Lanka and sold them with help of my
accomplices. Two children out of these were
sold to Manish Jain, Paras, Ghanshyam and
Jagbir Baranwal at Jaipur. Rest of the children
have been sold to Sunita Devi, Yashoda Pandit,
Mahesh Rana resident of Koderma, Mukesh
Mandit and Mahesh Rana residents Giridih. I
can get the vest of child, who was stolen by us
from Ram Chander Shukla crossing, recovered
from my home. Thereafter with the hope of
recovery of the clothes of kidnapped child,
we went to the house of the accused with the
police force. The accused going ahead gave a
dusty white colored vest near the cupboard, on
the neck and arm of which, a black band was
available and he stated it to be the vest of the
same child whom they stole on 14/05/2023. In
the meantime, the complainant along with his
wife arrived there and after looking at the vest,
stated that this vest belongs to my son Rohit. He
was wearing this same vest when he was stolen.
The above-mentioned Vest was taken into police
custody and kept with mobile in a plastic box
and sealed and the currency notes recovered
while searching were kept in an envelope and
sealed. The accused was informed about his
act as a crime under sections 363, 311 of IPC
and he was taken into police custody at 4:00
o'clock. The orders and directions of Supreme
Court and National Human Rights commissions
were strictly obeyed during arrest and recovery.
The memo was prepared on directions of me
532
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the inspector in the light of torch and streetlight
by SI Shivam Shrivastav. Arrest memo was
prepared on spot. The information of arrest of
the accused was given to his father-in-law Gopal
Shah. Memo is being read over and signatures
are being obtained from all concerned. A copy
of memo is being given to the accused."
b)
There are in all 14 accused persons who have been
chargesheeted in connection with FIR No. 193/2023
registered with P.S. Bhelupur, Varanasi referred to above.
Out of the 14 accused persons, the bail of 5 accused
persons have already been cancelled by this Court.
c)
The chargesheet came to be filed against the accused
persons on 17.07.2023 for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 311, 370(5) of the IPC. However, the charges
are yet to be framed on account of the persistent failure
on part of the accused persons in to appear before the
concerned trial court.
d)
The High Court had granted bail to several accused persons,
namely Sunita Devi, Gudiya Devi, Manish Jain, Mahesh
Rana s/o Ramlal Rana, Sangeeta Devi, Anuradha Devi and
Santosh Sao, vide orders dated 12.12.2023, 04.10.2023,
21.11.2023, 08.11.2023, 15.12.2023, 15.12.2023,
09.11.2023, respectively, which were challenged before this
Court vide SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1041-1047/2024. Subsequently,
vide order dated 24.09.2024, this Court was pleased to
set-aside the orders granting bail to the accused persons
in SLP (Crl.) No. 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045 and 1046/2024
respectively, with the direction to the accused persons to
surrender forthwith. The Special Leave Petition bearing
SLP (Crl.) No. 1043/2024 (R2- Manish Jain) and Criminal
Appeal bearing CRL.A. No. 4002/2024 arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 1047/2024 (R2-Santosh Sao) are before us for
consideration. Since the accused persons in SLP (Crl.)
No. 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045 and 1046/2024 respectively,
failed to surrender and no action was taken by the police
in furtherance to the aforesaid order, a Miscellaneous
Application bearing No.309/2025 came to be filed seeking
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
533
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
appropriate directions to the State Police machinery to file
a status report. It was only after this Court directed the
respondent State to file an affidavit indicating the steps
taken to comply with the aforesaid order, that the necessary
action was taken to arrest the accused persons. They were
arrested after more than five months from the passing
of the order. It is pertinent to mention that the accused
persons failed to surrender despite non-bailable warrants
(for short, "NBW") being issued against them from the
Court of the CJM, Varanasi. As per the status report filed
by the State, five accused persons, namely, Sunita Devi,
Gudiya Devi, Mahesh Rana s/o Ramlal Rana, Sangeeta
Devi and Anuradha Devi have been arrested.
ii.
FIR No. 50/2023 (in Samsher Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr.)
a)
The present case also pertains to the interstate childtrafficking racket which is alleged to have been run by the
same accused persons against whom FIR No. 193/2023
was registered at P.S. Bhelupur, Varanasi. During the
police investigation of FIR No. 193/2023, the present FIR
No. 50/2023 came into the light. The appellant, Samsher
Singh is a labourer who makes his living while taking
shelter on the streets under Andhrapul Bridge in Varanasi.
On 28.03.2023, his one-year-old daughter, Mohini, was
kidnapped and upon realizing the same, the appellant
and his wife started searching for their child frantically but
were unable to locate her. Desperate and with no leads,
the appellant filed a police complaint on 29.05.2023 at
P.S. Chetganj, Varanasi.
b)
There are 7 accused persons who have been chargesheeted
in FIR No. 50/2023 registered at P.S. Chetganj, Varanasi.
Out of the 7 accused persons, the bail orders passed by
the High Court of 3 accused persons are under challenge
before us.
c)
The chargesheet came to be filed against the accused
persons on 16.09.2023 for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 311 and 370 of the IPC. Thereafter,
534
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
supplementary chargesheets dated 19.03.2024, 05.06.2024
and 12.08.2024 respectively, came to be filed under
Sections 363, 311 and 370 of the IPC respectively.
However, the charges are yet to be framed on account of
nonappearance of the accused persons before the court
concerned.
d)
It is only after the intervention of this Court that the child
was traced and found on 20.03.2025 from the custody
of accused Anil Prasad Baranwal, R/o Krishna Nagar,
Kolkata, West Bengal.
iii.
FIR No. 201/2023 (in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.).
a)
The present case also pertains to the interstate childtrafficking racket which is run by the same accused persons
against whom FIR No. 193/2023 was registered at P.S.
Bhelupur, Varanasi. During the police investigation of FIR
No. 193/2023, it was revealed that the present FIR No.
201/2023 had been registered at P.S. Cantt., Varanasi
against the gang members of the same child trafficking
racket. On 29.04.2023, Smt. Pinki's one-year-old child,
Bahubali, was kidnapped from Nadesar Cantt., Varanasi
while the minor boy-child was sleeping beside the appellant
(Smt. Pinki), by the same members of the organized
interstate child-trafficking ring. Upon discovering that her
son went missing at 2:30AM, the appellant filed a police
complaint the following day at P.S. Cantt., Varanasi, leading
to the registration of FIR No. 201/2023 dated 30.04.2023.
Initially, the police report indicated that the complaint filed
by the appellant was one of a missing children, however,
further investigation revealed that the case was one of
child-trafficking as detailed in the Memo of Recovery in
FIR No. 201/2023 as follows:
"Today on 02/06/2023, I SI Saurabh Pandey
along with my companion SI Vaibhav Shukla,
Constable Anuj Kushvaha and Lady Constable
Rubi Singh, departed from Police Station Cantt,
Commissionerate Varanasi on dated 29/05/23
via GD 070 for investigation of present case
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
535
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
and in hope of recovery of kidnapped child and
arrest of accused as per the information provided
by the accused arrested in FIR no. 193/23 Under
Section 363/177/370(5) IPC namely Shikha
Gupta and Manish Kumar Jain etc, for searching
and clue, reached at Police Station Chandwara,
District Kodarma, Jharkhand on 30/05/2023 and
with the help of local police were busy in attempt
to recovery of child and arrest of accused, then
from Police Station Cantt constable Prem
Shankar Patel and SI Anand Chaurasiya,
Constable Sachin Singh, Constable Sumit Sahi
Police Station Bhelupur, Commissionerate
Varanasi and SI Ram Upadhyay, Constable Ejaz
H u s s a i n P o l i c e S t a t i o n C h e t g a n j ,
Commissionerate Varanasi met us at Chandwara
Highway in search of kidnapped children and
in search of clue. At that time from Prayagraj
Police SI Pavan Kumar Singh with his
companions SI Vikas Yadav with SOG SI Dinesh
Singh, Constable Rakesh Dube, Constable
Piyush Vajpeyi, Driver Manoj Kumar Singh in
vehicle no. UP70AG2572, with team in search
of child Shani Bind related to FIR no. 76/23
under Section 363 IPC Police Station Daraganj,
Commissionerate Prayagraj, met with us. There
only, Inspector Madhav from Mirzapur police
along with Head Constable Lal ji Yadav,
Constable Brij Kishore Sharma, SI Daya
Shankar Ojha, lady Constable Raksha Yadav,
Driver Constable Prabhu Narayan with vehicle
UP 32 BG 7504 in FIR no. 74/23 Under Section
363 IPC Police Station Vindhyachal, District
Mirzapur for searching the kidnapped child Kajal,
met with us. We all police officials after sharing
the information about kidnapped children and
arrest of accused, with the help of Chanwara
Police, for searching of kidnapped children and
arrest of accused, were present at highway.
536
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Then an informer came and told us that
Anuradha Nurse, you are searching for, is
present at highway in front of Global Nursing
home for going somewhere, if you move
immediately then she might be caught. On
believing this information, after joint planning,
we all police officials moved ahead with informer.
On highway only, signalling towards a lady, the
informer told that she is Anuradha Nurse whom
you are searching and then the informer went
away from there. Then we police officials went
ahead towards that lady. That lady was enquired
about her name and address with the help of
lady constable Rubi Singh and also was
searched. Then she stated her name as
Anuradha Devi wife of Yogender Singh aged 37
years resident of Village and Post Office Lupung,
Police Station Katkam Sandi, District Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand. While searching two android mobile
were found from her left hand (1) Oppo
CPH2269, IMEI No. 86205005576687J/
S62050055766881 and (2) Samsung SMG E I O F, I M E I - 3 5 8 9 7 2 0 8 1 4 4 6 9 1 4 /
358973081446912 were recovered. Informing
about the above-mentioned incident, questions
were asked from above mentioned Anuradha,
then she told that I have purchased many
children through Madan Baranwal, Manish Jain,
Jagvir Baranwal, Ghanshyam and Gudiya and
sold ahead. Then I, the SI, asked her about the
child who was stolen from Nadesar Cantt after
showing his picture in the mobile then she said
that this one year baby was sold to me by Jagvir
in 2.5 Lakh rupees. I have sold this child further
in 3.5 lakh through Kuldeep Paswan resident
of Markacho to his some known one. After that
the picture of the child stolen from Prayagraj
was shown to Anuradha and she replied that
she had sold this child to Santosh Sao of
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
537
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Majhgawan and still the child is with him.
Thereafter Bhelupur police and SI Ram
Upadhyay asked her about the girl child stolen
from Choukaghat, Varanasi, then she said that
about this girl, only Madan Baranwal can tell
you about this child who is the relative of Jagvir
and Manish Jain. After that the Mirzapur police
showed the picture of the girl child kidnapped
from their area and enquired about her, then
Anuradha said that Jagvir and Gudia had sold
a four-five years old child to her in 45 thousand
rupees and she sold her to Sangeeta wife of
Tulsi Rana resident of Pogdanda working at
Health sub center. I was involved in the purchase
and sale of many other children. I can get
recovered the children kept with Santosh and
Sangeeta and can get Jagvir and Gudia
arrested. Thereafter, after keeping Anuradha
under supervision, we reached the place told
by her at Manjhgawa at the house of Santosh
Sav where Anuradha signalled towards a person
who was carrying a child and told that this is
the same child who was stolen from Prayagraj.
On this we police officials enquired about the
child from Santosh Sav through different
questions. He stated his name as Santosh Sav
son of Bihari Sav aged 37 years, resident of
Manjhgawa, Post Office Kako, Police Station
Tilaiya Dam, District Kodarma, Jharkhand and
when he was asked about the child strictly then
he stated that he purchased the child for Rs. 4
lakh from that Anuradha who has come with
you. Thereafter SI Pavan Kumar Singh sent the
photo of child to her parents and got the child
identified through video call from his father
Vishnu Bind where he identified the child as his
son Shani Nishad and the child also started
weeping after getting emotional while seeing
his parents on video call. Thereafter the child
538
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was taken in security by Constable Piyush
Vajpeyi and Santosh Sav was kept in supervision
of Constable Rakesh. We police officials moved
ahead with all of them. Anuradha further
informed that the baby of Vindhyachal is still
with Sangeeta Devi. On believing her, we
departed for the village of Sangeeta Devi namely
Pogdanda. Outside of village only we saw a
lady carrying a child in her lap. Signalling towards
her Anuradha told that she is Sangeeta and the
same child, about whom she was telling about.
Thereafter, that lady was asked about her name
and address and about that child with the help
of Lady Constable Raksha Yadav. She told that
my name is Sangeeta Devi wife of Tulsi Ram,
age 34 years, resident of Village Pogdanda,
Police Station Jainagar, District Kodarma. A
mobile from her left hand Samsung Galaxy
M O I S , I M E I 3 5 6 1 4 8 1 1 4 5 0 0 2 3 1 /
356149114500239, Mobile No. 990595469 was
recovered. On being enquired about the child,
she stated that she had purchased the child for
Rs. 55 thousand from the same Anuradha who
was with us and now I was going to searching
a customer for selling the child while you caught
me. Thereafter, the recovered child was handed
over in security of Constable Prem Shankar
Patel and Sangeeta Sao was handed over in
the monitoring of lady constable Raksha Yadav
and departed in search for the house of Gudiya
as per the information given by Anuradha and
after informing Police Station Tilaiya, reached
the house of Gudiya at Gandhi School Road,
Tilaiya, Kodarma. Where she was found present.
She was brought with lady constable Rubi Singh
after informing Police Station Tilaiya, we
departed towards Police Station Chandwara.
We reached near Chandwara Police Station, a
person was walking on the road, signaling
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
539
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
towards whom Anuradha said that he is Jagvir
about whom I was telling. Thereafter that person
was stopped by us and he was told about the
incident and inquired. Then that person was
shocked on seeing Anuradha, Gudiya, Sangeeta
and recovered children and accepted his mistake
and apologized for his mistake and told that my
name is Jagvir Baranwal son of Sahdev Modi,
aged 41 years resident of village Mahugai, Post
Office and Police Station Chandwara, District
Kodarma, Jharkhand. One of my relatives is
Manish Kumar Jain resident of Jaipur, through
him I came into contact with a lady from Banaras
namely Shikha Gupta who with the help of her
companions Vinay, Tannu and Santosh steal
children and used to give to me and I with the
help of Gudiya and Anuradha sell them after
finding customers. Thereafter Jagvir Baranwal
was searched and from his right hand a Galaxy
A 30S, IMEI 35857711144744/ 358578101144742
android was found. Then Gudiya, who was with
us, apologized stating that she knew Madan
Baranwal, Jagvir Baranwal, Manish Jain and
Anuradha for a long time and I help to sell
children with help of them and I receive
commission for that. My name is Gudiya Devi
wife of Sakal Dev Yadav, age 30 years, resident
of Gandhi School Road, Tilaiya, Kodarma. Sir,
I also have a keypad mobile, I am giving the
same to you. When keypad mobile was seen,
it was of blue colour NOKIA keypad mobile IMEI
of which is 357749105458963. Santosh Sao
who was present with us also recovered a
keypad mobile. When it was seen, it was found
black colour Itel Mobile, the IMEI of which is
357278443860326/ 357278443860334. The
accused present on spot Jagvir Baranwal and
Santosh Sav above mentioned and accused
Anuradha Devi, Sangeeta Devi and Gudiya Devi
540
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
above said were told about the sections
363/311/370 IPC and taken into police custody
at 11:05 hrs. During the arrest and recovery of
children, people were gathered there who were
told for witness but in fear of evil and good, they
went away from there. The orders and directions
of Supreme Court and Human Rights
commissions were obeyed. Memo of recovery
and arrest was prepared on spot and was read
over and signature are being obtained and
recovered mobiles phones were sealed and
stamped. Information of arrest will be given to
the family members through proper channel. A
copy of memo for accused is being given to
Jagvir Baranwal with their consent."
b)
There are ten accused persons who have been chargesheeted in connection with FIR No. 201/2023 registered
at P.S. Cantt., Varanasi. Out of the ten accused persons,
the bail orders of three accused persons have been
cancelled by this Court in proceedings arising out of FIR
No.193/2023. The legality and validity of the bail orders
passed by the High Court as regards six co-accused is
now falling for our consideration.
c)
The chargesheet came to be filed against the accused
persons on 07.09.2023 for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 311 & 370(5) of IPC respectively. However,
the charges are yet to be framed on account of nonappearance of the accused persons before the court
concerned.
9.
The details of the committal court proceedings as regards the
aforementioned three FIRs are as follows:
"i. FIR No. 193/2023
Before Special CJM, District Varanasi
Criminal Case No. 93745/2023
Cause Title: State v. Anuradha Devi & Ors.
Stage: For Committal
NDOH: 21.04.2025.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
541
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
ii. FIR No. 50/2023
Before Additional CJM, Court No. 5, District Varanasi
Criminal Case No. 113651/2023
Cause Title: State v. Manish Jain & Ors.
Stage: For committal
NDOH: 01.04.2025
iii. FIR No. 201/2023
Before CJM, District Varanasi
Criminal Case No. 118963/2023
Cause Title: State v. Kuldeep Paswan @ Kuldeep Ram
& Ors.
Stage: For committal
NDOH: 03.04.2025"
B.
CHILD TRAFFICKING
i.
Global Context
10. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (CRC),
recognises the importance of family and the importance for a child
to grow in a family environment.1 It also casts a duty on the State
to ensure that children should not be separated from their parents
against their will except when it is in the best interests of the child.
Adoption is considered an alternate care mechanism for children who
are unable to live with their parents due to various circumstances
and adoption is preferred over institutionalisation.
11. In 1993, The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption2 was introduced to
have a global regulatory system to ensure that adoptions take place
through a state approved mechanism and inter-country adoptions take
place after exhausting adoption/placement opportunities domestically.
The principle of "subsidiarity" is one of the guiding principles of
this Convention. The States which have signed and ratified these
conventions have also framed domestic regulations conforming to
1
Convention on the Rights of the Child arts. 7 & 8, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
2
Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, May
29, 1993, 1870 U.N.T.S. 167.
542
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the International Conventions and created institutions to implement
the same.
12. In the year 2000, there was a global acknowledgement of trafficking
in persons was taking diverse forms and hence, it was collectively
decided that studying and recognising the trafficking processes visà-vis the purpose for which such trafficking was being done, was
important. This enabled recognising a pattern used by traffickers
for different end results. In the "Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children"
supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised
Crime, "trafficking" has been defined under Article 3 of the Protocol
as follows:
"(a) "Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons,
by means of the threat or use of force or other forms
of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the
abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person,
for the purpose of exploitation.