Parents Must Be Vigilant With Their Children: Supreme Court Cautions On Gangs Engaged In Child Trafficking
The Supreme Court said that when the child dies, the parents may with passage of time resign to the will of the Almighty but when the child is lost and not found, they have to suffer the pain and agony for the rest of their life, which is worse than death.
The Supreme Court, in its recent Judgment, has cautioned the parents on the gangs engaged in child trafficking, saying that they must be vigilant with their children.
The Court was deciding a batch of Criminal Appeals arising from various Orders of the Allahabad High Court which released 13 accused persons on bail in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “We want to convey a message to one & all more particularly the parents across the country that they should remain extremely vigilant and careful with their children. A slight carelessness or negligence or laxity on their part may prove to be extremely costly. The pain and agony which any parents may have to face when the child dies is different from the pain and agony that the parents may have to face when they lose their children to such gangs engaged in trafficking.”
The Bench said that when the child dies, the parents may with passage of time resign to the will of the Almighty but when the child is lost and not found, they have to suffer the pain and agony for the rest of their life, which is worse than death.
“Therefore, we humbly urge to one and all to remain very cautious and vigilant”, it added.
Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the Appellants/Victims while AOR Sangeeta Singh and Advocate Tanya Agarwal appeared for the Respondents/Accused. AOR Garvesh Kabra appeared for the State.
The cases in the Appeals before the Apex Court pertained to an inter-State child trafficking racket profiting from kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children, especially those children who come from an impoverished background.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… some of the accused persons who have been arrested are habitual offenders. The report says that one Anjali who had been earlier arrested by CBI in a similar case of human trafficking is said to be involved in the present incident.”
The Court was 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 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”, it said.
The Court further remarked that 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.
Conclusion
“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”, it added.
The Court also said that certain restrictions or limitations, on the exercise of personal liberty, by the State or other such human agency, are necessary elements, in the interest of liberty of a well-ordered society or societal interest.
The Court, therefore, directed all the accused persons to surrender before the Committal Court and ordered that the same shall remand them to the judicial custody.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the High Court’s Bail Orders.
Cause Title- Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 482)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, AOR Mayank Sapra, Advocates Lalima Das, Karishma Maria, and Gopal Krishna.
Respondents: AORs Sangeeta Singh, Garvesh Kabra, Purna Chandra Patnaik, Gunjan Kumar, Shubhangi Tuli, Advocates Tanya Agarwal, Pooja Kabra, Sujata Upadhyay, Nikita Jaju, Ishwar Chand Roy, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Prashant Kumar, Akshay Sahay, Farhan Khan, Md Shahid Anwar, and Kamlesh Kumar Mishra.
