The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of trafficking by buying a newborn child, observing that she had arranged the child for her daughter and therefore the ingredients of trafficking under Section 143 of the BNS were prima facie not fulfilled. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 287]

For context, Section 143 of the BNS defines trafficking as whoever, for exploitation, recruits, transports, harbours, transfers, or receives a person. Explanation 1 of the Section defines “exploitation” as including any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, beggary or forced removal of organs.

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed:

"...daughter of the present applicant have no issues and child was arranged only for the daughter of the applicant. Accordingly, the arguments of the counsel have substance that the essential ingredients of the expression 'exploitation', as defined in Explanation 1 appended to Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not attracted to the facts of the present case..."

A bail application was filed by a Muslim woman accused of trafficking (Section 143 of BNS) and buying/selling a child (Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act). The applicant has been in custody since April 5, 2026.

Per the prosecution, a woman named H had two children and became pregnant a third time. She was not willing to continue the pregnancy owing to financial and family constraints. Subsequently, H went to a doctor for termination of pregnancy, but it was denied, noting that she was in poor health.

While H was weeping over the rejection by the doctor, another woman, S, approached her. S claimed to be a member of ASHA and suggested that H should continue the pregnancy and that she could arrange a suitable family for adoption of the child after birth.

Thus, H continued the pregnancy on the assurance of S. S also assured that her medical expenses would be borne by the adopting family. Thus, H delivered the baby on March 31, 2026. Thereafter, S, along with her husband, took custody of the newborn child, assuring H that the child would be given in adoption to a respectable and deserving family.

S further asserted that she would video call H while handing the child over to the adopting family. S further alleged took signatures of H on blank paper on the pretext of completing the formalities. However, H received no video call for the next three days.

Therefore, H demanded the custody of the child back, but S informed her that the child was also given to the adopting family, which was the applicant and her daughter.

H thus filed a complaint with the police claiming that S had sold her newborn baby to the applicant for monetary consideration.

The counsel for the applicant claimed that their bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that H, in a statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS (statements recorded by a Judicial Magistrate), stated that the applicant was a prostitute and therefore demanded the procurement of a newborn child.

The counsel claimed that there was no financial link that the applicant had purchased the baby; rather, the records show that the expenses of H were borne by the applicant. This conduct of the applicant shows their intention to adopt a baby rather than their intention to buy one.

The counsel further claimed that the child was handed over to the mother within 10 days. Further, the counsel submitted that S and her husband played an active role in the alleged removal of the child from the hospital and procured H's signatures on the stamp paper.

The counsel further argued that H handed over the child to others, and then posed as a victim and blamed the persons who ensured her child could survive.

The bench noted that the present case does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 143 BNS and therefore the said provision does not apply in the case. Examining the evidence on record, the court noted that the applicant had arranged the child for her daughter.

Thus, the bench granted bail to the applicant subject to compliance with the terms and conditions.

Case Title: Rubina v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-29110-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 287

For Applicant: Advocate Chinmay Kalgonkar

For State: Government Advocate Sunit Kapoor

For objector: Advocate Manish Gadkar

Click here to read/download the Order