Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Order Granting Bail To Child Trafficking Accused; Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging It

The Supreme Court today(January 23) cancelled the bail granted to a child trafficking accused by the Allahabad High Court. It noted that the Allahabad High Court passed mechnical bail order without due consideration to the seriousness and the gravity of the allegations involved. It questioned why the State of Uttar Pradesh is not serious in seeking cancellation of such bail orders. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod K Chandran passed the order after a brief submission by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat(appearing for the NGO). At the outset, Bhat submitted that the allegation against the Respondent 2, Tulsi, is under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. But the High Court passed the order in a cursory manner, only considering Respondent had suffered incarceration for five years, and on grounds of parity with other co-accused. She submitted that the allegation against the present accused came to light during the investigation of two other trafficking cases in which young children were forced into prostitution. She added that the victim had specifically recognised the accused."Each time she has gone [out] on bail, she has done so to further trafficking of children and prostitution. She is a known trafficker in the red light area of Varanasi. In a case of this nature, on the ground that the co-accused against whom the allegation was that during the course of transfer, he had sexually assaulted her. That is the allegation against him. He has been granted bail. We are an anti-trafficking organisation, and we are not able to keep up with the bail granted in such cases by various Courts," Bhat submitted. When Bhat took the Court through the bail order passed by the High Court, Justice Kumar remarked that it's a "mechanical order" made by using the same template. He said: "Unfortunately, I have been too many bail orders passed by this learned Judge. These are template orders being followed- overcrowding of jails and Satendra Kumar Antil [quoted]. Section 376, same order, 302, same order."When the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that she had already suffered incarceration and the NGO is not how it portrays itself to be, Justice Kumar stated that the accused had been identified by the victim. It ordered: "The appellant sansathan is before this court aggrieved by the grant of regular bail to Respondent 2, Tulsi, wife of late Mehta, in connection with 300/2005 (ST No. 651/2020) registered under Sections 372, 373, IPC along with 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act...We find from the impugned order dated 19.5.2025 passed by a learned judge of the Allahabad High Court, that the gravity of the offence as alleged against Respondent 2 was not even considered and by merely stating as follows....the learned judge proceeded to allow the bail. We find that similar orders are being passed without reference to the nature and seriousness of the offence and without even considering the factual situations operating in that particular case. Even if the High Court is overburdened with work, it is expected to apply its mind while passing orders of bail, more so in matters of this nature involving allegations of trafficking of children.We find that Respondent 2 is already facing criminal proceedings in relation to five cases commencing from 2005 onwards...Except for three of the cases, the other involved allegations of the Immoral Trafficking Act. We find that the victim girl who was examined as PW1 specifically spoke of the involved of Respondent 2 in the course of the trafficking. In such circumstances, we find that no grounds are made to sustain the order of the bail order. The impugned order dated 19.5.2025 is set out. Respondent no. 2 shall surrender one week.We are surprised to note that the State has now come forward to seek cancellation of bail in a nature of this nature."After passing the order, Justice Kumar said: "Judges seem to be competing with each other as to the number of bail petitions they can dispose of in a day."Many benches of the Supreme Court have taken note of the increasing number of child trafficking cases where the High Court is granting bail and the State is not coming forward to seek its cancellation. Recently, one bench expressed its intention to formulate a common SoP for the recovery of missing children (G Ganesh v State of Tamil Nadu).Another bench has been hearing criminal appeals(Pinki v State of Uttar Pradesh) filed against the Allahabad High Court, granting bail to accused persons in child trafficking cases. From time to time, the Court passed orders cancelling bail and cautioned the State Government to be vigilant about filing for cancellation of bail in such cases.In this case as well, the Court has passed some general orders, such as for the expedited hearing of such cases, trials be completed in 6 months, and also sought data from the High Courts on the pending trials in child trafficking matters.Case Details: GURIYA SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHAN Vs...

Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Order Granting Bail To Child Trafficking Accused; Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging It

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags