.png){kind=small}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
3 hours ago
5
ARTICLE AD BOX
The High Court had given them bail in November-December 2023. In an order dated April 15, 2025, the SC cancelled their bail, and asked them to surrender.
The Supreme Court Monday said that child trafficking is “very rampant nowadays” in Delhi, sought to know what the Centre was doing to control it, and directed it to submit a report “at the earliest”.
The Supreme Court was hearing criminal appeals arising out of orders of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to some accused in an interstate child-trafficking racket. The racketeer profited from kidnapping, buying and selling of minor children, especially those from an impoverished background.
The High Court had given them bail in November-December 2023. In an order dated April 15, 2025, the SC cancelled their bail, and asked them to surrender.
“We would like to know from the Union what further steps have been taken to curb this crime, which is very rampant nowadays in the city of Delhi,” a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, and sought to know “the current status of the child trafficking cases so far as Delhi is concerned.”
“Considering the serious nature of the crime and the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons, we are of the view that the High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused persons. We are sorry to say, but the High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very callous manner,” said the bench.
“The outcome of this callous approach on the part of the High Court has ultimately paved the way for many accused persons to abscond and thereby put the trial in jeopardy. These accused persons are a big threat to society wherever they are in the country. They have exhibited a tendency of committing a particular nature of crime, namely, child trafficking.”
Expressing anguish, the SC said, “The least that was expected of the High Court while granting bail to all the accused persons was to impose a condition on each of them to mark their presence once a week at the concerned police station so that the police can keep a check on the movements of all the accused persons. All that the High Court did was to direct the accused persons to remain present before the trial court. In none of the impugned orders, there is a condition of marking presence at the concerned police station; as a result, the police lost track of all these accused persons.”
Story continues below this ad
The court also questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government for not seeking cancellation of their bail. “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? Why did the State not deem it fit to challenge the orders of bail passed by the High Court? The State, unfortunately, has exhibited no seriousness worth the name.”
On Monday, Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, who is amicus curiae in the case, informed the bench that the Allahabad High Court released two accused in a child trafficking case.
“We would like to have a look at those bail orders,” the bench said, and posted the matter for hearing next on August 18.
English (US) ·