Supreme Court Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging Bail Granted In Child Trafficking Cases, Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Approach

While cancelling the bail granted to thirteen accused persons in several cases involving inter-State trafficking of minors, the Supreme Court criticised and expressed its disappointment with how the State of Uttar Pradesh did not challenge the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court despite the matter involving crimes of a serious nature. 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 fit to challenge the orders of bail passed by the High Court? The State unfortunately has exhibited no seriousness worth the name. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan also called out the Allahabad High Court for being "callous" in exercising discretion while granting them bail, after which the accused persons absconded and did not attend the court proceedings. We are sorry to say but the High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very callous manner. The outcome of this callous approach on the part of the High Court has ultimately paved way for many accused persons to abscond and thereby put the trial in jeopardy. These accused persons are a big threat to the society wherever they are in the country exhibited a tendency of committing a particular nature of crime, namely, child trafficking. 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 in a week at the concerned police station so that the police can keep a check over the movements of all the accused persons, the Court added.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.Therefore, the Court ordered setting aside all orders passed by the High Court granting bail: All the accused persons are directed to surrender before the committal court and the committal court in turn shall remand them to judicial custody.These cases pertain to child trafficking rackets involving kidnapping and selling of minor children. They were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court considering that the accused persons were not named in the FIR; the name was disclosed by a co-accused, the victims were not recovered from their custody and parity with the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail. While granting bail, the High Court imposed bail conditions that they would continue to appear before the trial court and not tamper with evidence or pressurise witnesses. However, most of them absconded. Subsequent to a petition filed before the Supreme Court, some of them were re-arrested, and their bail orders were cancelled. For those who were not re-arrested, the correctness of the bail orders was the subject-matter of the present case. The High Court orders were challenged by the kin and kith of the children who came to be traffickeSenior Advocate Aparna Bhat, for the petitioners, had submitted that some of the Respondents in different cases are nurses serving in healthcare centres and at least four of the trafficked children were retrieved at their instances from the persons to whom they had sold the children. If they are granted bail, they would return to their place of work and continue to indulge in nefarious activities, which constitutes a very serious crime. Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh, Advocate Garvesh Kabra, had supported all arguments of Bhat and added that the whereabouts of most of the accused persons are not known as of the date. The Court, referring to a report of the Times of India published on April 14, observed that a huge gang appeared to be dangerously operating within & outside Delhi and is selling trafficked infants and children in different States for sums ranging from Rs. 5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-The Court also issued general directions to all States and High Courts regarding the expedition of trial in child trafficiking cases.The other directions were :1. We direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate District Varanasi and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 5 District Varanasi to commit all the three criminal cases referred to in para 9 of this judgment to the sessions court, within a period of two weeks from today without fail.2. Upon all the three criminal cases being committed to the court of sessions, the concerned trial court shall proceed to frame charge against individual accused persons within a period of one week thereafter. Issusance of non-bailable warrant for absconding accused persons 3. If it is brought to the notice of the trial court that some of the accused persons have absconded or their whereabouts are not known, the trial court shall take steps immediately to secure their presence by issuing non-bailable warrant etc. The trial of the absconding...

Supreme Court Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging Bail Granted In Child Trafficking Cases, Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Approach

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Supreme Court Questions UP Govt For Not Challenging Bail Granted In Child Trafficking Cases, Criticises Allahabad HC's Casual Approach

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers