Court denies bail to man accused in child trafficking case

A Delhi court on Monday rejected bail plea of a man accused in an inter-state child trafficking racket, noting that societal concern and collective urge for the protection of innocent children must outweigh the individual liberty of the accused

A Delhi court on Monday rejected bail plea of a man accused in an inter-state child trafficking racket, noting that societal concern and collective urge for the protection of innocent children must outweigh the individual liberty of the accused.

The case pertains to a complaint about trafficking of a minor girl, allegedly born to rape victim. The rape case was registered at Pul Prahladpur police station. (Shutterstock)

The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of Saket courts, expressing concerns regarding “menace of child trafficking” and “commodification of infants”.

“Child trafficking is a heinous scourge and an onslaught on the moral conscience of civilized society. Children are the most vulnerable and precious members of our collective society, and their lives, liberty, and dignity cannot be subjected to a commercial market,” the order stated.

The case pertains to a complaint about trafficking of a minor girl, allegedly born to rape victim. The rape case was registered at Pul Prahladpur police station.

The FIR under sections of trafficking was lodged on November 13 last year after the Special Police Unit for Women and Children (SPUWAC) of Delhi Police received an information regarding the illegal adoption and trafficking of a minor girl.

According to the police, when the girl’s mother was admitted to the hospital for delivery, a housekeeping assistant, Aruna, approached the patient’s mother and lured her into giving away the baby for adoption in exchange for money.

The baby was later handed over to Aruna in exchange of ₹50,000, partly paid by the assistant and rest by the purchasers of the child.

During investigation, police found that Aruna had handed the girl to Anil Pandey, who operated “Ladli Art Bank” at Kapashera border under the guise of “an arrangement office for egg and sperm donors for IVF centres and surrogacy”.

Anil and his brother Sunil Pandey took the child to another woman, Sunita. Later, investigation revealed that Sunita, along with her husband Raj Kumar, kept the baby for a day, and sold her the next day to co-accused Pinky in exchange for money. Pinky then sold the girl to Kamlesh and Poonam Singh for over a lakh worth money.

The trafficked infant girl remains untraced and was yet to be recovered, the court noted.

In his bail plea, Raj Kumar said that he had been falsely implicated in the case merely by virtue of being Sunita’s husband and that there was no material to connect him to the conspiracy.

Additional public prosecutor Santosh Kumar Tripathi opposed the bail, stating that the accused and his wife ran a commercial trading enterprise of selling newborn infants “like commodities”. He argued that three of the co-accused were on the run and the missing child of the victim was yet to be traced.

The court observed that the allegations against the applicant and his co-accused (Sunita) were of an “exceptionally serious nature”, involving the trafficking of an infant girl who was barely a week old.

“The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant was not a passive bystander. He acted in active concert and conspiracy with his wife, Sunita, to purchase the newborn infant girl from Anil Pandey, harbor her in their home for a day, and immediately trade her to co-accused Pinky for a substantial commercial profit,” the order mentioned.

The court further observed that targeting young, impoverished, and defenceless mothers, such as the complainant, who herself was a minor victim of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) Act, “to strip them of their newborn babies for financial greed is an act of unspeakable cruelty”.

In child trafficking syndicates, the court noted that a “lenient or casual approach at the bail stage severely compromises public safety and risks letting repeat offenders loose to prey on more defenceless children”.

The court said that in the present case, the accused’s wife was a history-sheeter with four other involvements in similar crimes of child trafficking, demonstrating a systematic pattern of behaviour.

“Three major co-conspirators in this trans-state racket have absconded and have been declared Proclaimed Offenders. The societal concern and the collective cry for the protection of innocent children must outweigh the individual liberty of the applicant in the face of such overwhelming, grave allegations,” the court added.