Supreme Court Sets Aside Multiple High Court Bail Orders In Large Interstate Child‑Trafficking Racket; Directs Surrender, Quick Committal And Expedited Trial

A bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard a batch of criminal appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions and Criminal Appeals (including Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4658 of 2025) challenging several orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that had granted bail to 13 accused in multiple FIRs relating to an alleged organised interstate child‑trafficking network. The appeals were filed by victims and relatives of trafficked children; three accused — Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal and Manish Jain — appeared before the Court opposing cancellation of bail.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court bail orders and directed immediate surrender and remand of the accused to judicial custody. It held that, having regard to the “serious nature of the crime and the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons,” the High Court ought not to have granted bail in the manner it did and that several bail orders reflected a failure to apply mind to relevant considerations. The Court recorded that several accused had absconded after being released on bail and emphasised the need for urgent and coordinated action to complete committal and trial proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court directed committal of three criminal cases to the Sessions Court within two weeks, framing of charges within one week thereafter, completion of trial preferably on day‑to‑day basis within six months, appointment of three special public prosecutors, police protection for victims and active tracing of absconding accused.

Background The appeals arose from FIR No. 193/2023 (P.S. Bhelupur), FIR No. 50/2023 (P.S. Chetganj) and FIR No. 201/2023 (P.S. Cantt.), registered in Varanasi and connected districts, which recorded disappearance and later recovery investigations of young children — including a four‑year‑old Rohit and infants named in the record — and culminated in charges under Sections 363, 311 and 370(5) IPC for kidnapping and trafficking. Investigation material, including recovery memos and statements of co‑accused, allegedly traced a wide network across Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and West Bengal and disclosed purchasers and sellers of trafficked children; the police recovered several children from the custody of accused and from third parties. The High Court had granted bail to several accused on varying grounds — non‑naming in FIR, disclosure of names by co‑accused, absence of recovery from custody and parity with co‑accused — in orders the State and victims challenged before this Court. Citing precedents and statutory framework on child protection and trafficking, the Court recalled the principle that “in case of every missing child reported; there will be an initial presumption of either abduction or trafficking, unless, in the investigation, the same is proved otherwise.” The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s orders did not sufficiently weigh factors relevant to serious organised trafficking offences and that liberty conditions lacked safeguards (for example, periodic police check‑ins) which resulted in several accused absconding. The Court therefore quashed the impugned bail orders, directed surrender and remand, ordered focused administrative and prosecutorial measures and gave detailed directions to State Governments, High Courts and policing agencies to strengthen rescue, investigation, prosecution and rehabilitation measures for trafficked children.

Case Details: Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4658 of 2025; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1927–1944 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4658, 4660–4676 and allied matters) / 2025 INSC 482 Case Title: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (and allied appeals including Sanjay v. State of U.P.; Samsher Singh v. State of U.P.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate (for victims/appellants); (also appearing) Ms. Tanya Agarwal (for Santosh Sao); Ms. Sangeeta Singh (for Manish Jain) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Advocate (for State of Uttar Pradesh); Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General (appearing for Union in related Writ matter)