Child-Trafficking: Gujarat High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of 'Promising To Sell' Kidnapped Infant For ₹1.5 Lakh
The Gujarat High Court denied bail to a man booked in a child-kidnapping and trafficking case, who was accused of promising the abductors of selling the child for Rs. 1,50,000 and had also facilitated the travel of the abductors along with the child to Aurangabad.
In doing so the court found that the "role" of the petitioner in the offence was "prima facie very clear".
The petitioner was seeking bail in an FIR registered under Sections 137(2)(kidnapping), 143(4)(Trafficking of person), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) BNS and provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order noted:
"The fact of the allegation in the FIR being very serious inasmuch as the accused had conspired to abduct a child who is six months old and then to sell the child to a childless couple that is to say that the accused is involved in trafficking of the child. The fact of the applicant being involved in the offence in question more particularly it would appear that while the applicant was not part of the first offence i.e. when the child was abducted from the lawful custody of the parents, the applicant had played active role in the later part of the offence inasmuch as it would prima facie appear that after the child had been abducted, the accused who were involved in the abduction had contacted the present applicant asking him to find a buyer to sell the child in question and whereas, the present applicant had promised that the child could be sold for around one and a half lakh rupees and had called the abductors along with the child to Aurangabad and the present applicant had also sent an amount of Rs.2,000/- through UPI to the abductors for facilitating their travel to Aurangabad".
The court said that the petitioner was apprehended from the spot from where the child was rescued. It further noted that the IO had recovered mobile phone of the petitioner, and the photo of the child as well as the ticket for the other accused for travelling to Aurangabad had also been recovered which fortified the allegation that the petitioner was involved in the offence in question.
The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that a co-accused was also granted bail, on noting that role allegedly attributed to the co-accused was of watching the area where the parents of the kidnapped child were residing to understand the reaction of the parents after the crime was committed.
The court in the co-accused's case had noted that the petitioner therein was working on the instructions of his wife who was one of the main conspirators and otherwise he had no role to play independently in the offence in question.
"As against the same, as noted hereinabove, the present applicant was an active player in the entire offence, more particularly, the present applicant having talked to the wife of the applicant who had been released by this Court, who was the principal conspirator and whereas, it is the present applicant who had informed the said accused as regards the approximately an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being available for the child if she sold and whereas, the applicant also having sent money to the accused who had abducted the child, as noticed hereinabove, the role of the present applicant cannot be compared with the role attributed to the accused who had been considered for enlargement by this Court.
Considering the above, to this Court, since it would appear that the offence being very serious and the role of the applicant being prima facie very clear, this Court is not inclined to consider this application," the court said.
The bail petition was rejected.
Case title: SIDHDHANT @ SAMADHAN KEVALRAO JAGTAP v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5161 of 2026