Court criticizes police's selective arrest policy in child trafficking investigation; emphasizes psychological trauma suffered by trafficked infant; orders status report within four weeks
In a significant judgment addressing the alarming issue of child trafficking, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to the petitioner Rajkumar in a case involving the alleged sale of an infant girl child. Justice Girish Kathpalia, while rejecting the bail application filed in case FIR No. 293/2024 registered at Police Station Nangloi, has also issued stern directions to the investigating authorities to arrest the main accused, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur (who remains absconding), and ensure the rescue of the trafficked child.
The Case Overview
According to the prosecution's allegations, the accused and co-accused Gayatri allegedly impersonated themselves as husband and wife and adopted an infant girl. They subsequently sold the child to co-accused Deepika, who further sold the infant to another person. The case involves serious charges under Section 370 (human trafficking) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Defence Arguments
The counsel for the petitioner argued that Rajkumar had already spent two and a half years in custody and that all public witnesses had been examined during trial. The defence team vehemently denied any involvement in child trafficking and contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated merely because he was the paternal uncle of co-accused Deepika, who had already been granted bail. Additionally, the defence highlighted the glaring inconsistency in the police's investigation approach, pointing out that the main accused, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur, remained unarrested despite her central role in the alleged crime.
Court's Observations and Concerns
Justice Kathpalia's judgment contains several critical observations that extend beyond the immediate bail application. The Court noted that the petitioner is clearly visible in photographs accepting custody of the adopted infant girl in the presence of her biological parents. This photographic evidence constitutes significant material evidence against the petitioner, undermining the defence's claim of false implication.
Most importantly, the judgment addresses the profound psychological impact of child trafficking on victims. The Court eloquently stated: "Every time custody of an infant is taken away from her biological mother, followed by the adoptive parent, followed further by other persons as happened in the present case, the infant suffers tremendous dent in her psyche, which gets manifested in her personality at some future stage." This observation underscores the judiciary's understanding of the lasting trauma inflicted upon trafficked children.
Scathing Criticism of Police Conduct
A notable aspect of this judgment is the Court's strong disapproval of the police's selective arrest policy. Justice Kathpalia explicitly stated: "The policy of the State to selectively arrest some of the accused persons cannot be approved. The police should clearly state as to whether they want to arrest an accused or not. The Court cannot direct the police to do or not to do so. Such kind of pick and choose in matter of arrest must be deprecated."
The Court found it particularly appalling that the investigating officers had failed to arrest Dr. Kulvinder Kaur, who appears to be the primary accused in the trafficking ring. The judgment reveals that upon questioning during the bail hearing, the investigating officer admitted that practically no action had been taken against this key accused. Furthermore, it was revealed that Dr. Kulvinder Kaur is not even a qualified doctor but merely an unqualified nurse, suggesting potential fraud in the adoption proceedings.
The Critical Issue of the Missing Child
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect highlighted by the Court is that till date, the allegedly trafficked girl child has not been recovered or rescued by the police. This failure represents a significant lapse in the investigation and an ongoing risk to the child's safety and welfare. The Court noted that this aspect alone demonstrates the appalling role played by investigators in the case.
Bail Application Dismissed
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the bail application, finding that the gravity of the allegations, the photographic evidence linking the petitioner to the acceptance of the infant, and the overall circumstances of the case did not warrant the release of the accused on bail. The Court also rejected the defence's argument seeking parity with co-accused Deepika, noting that Deepika's bail was granted under "completely distinct circumstances" and she was not visible in the photographs accepting the infant girl.
Directions Issued
The judgment contains important procedural directions:
- 1. A copy of the order has been sent to the concerned DCP to investigate the matter of selective arrests and ensure that Dr. Kulvinder Kaur is arrested immediately.
- 2. The DCP has been directed to ensure the rescue and recovery of the trafficked girl child at the earliest.
- 3. A status report must be filed by the concerned DCP within four weeks regarding the arrest of the main accused and the rescue of the victim child.
- 4. A copy of the order has been sent to the Jail Superintendent for immediate communication to the petitioner.
Legal Significance
This judgment is significant for several reasons. It reinforces that child trafficking cases must be treated with utmost seriousness and that the welfare of trafficked children should be paramount. The Court's criticism of selective arrests highlights the need for consistent and comprehensive police investigation in organized trafficking cases. The judgment also demonstrates judicial concern for the long-term psychological consequences of child trafficking and the importance of prompt rescue and rehabilitation of victims.
The case serves as a reminder of the ongoing menace of child trafficking in India and the need for coordinated efforts between law enforcement, judiciary, and child welfare authorities to combat this heinous crime effectively.
Bottom Line:
Bail application in a child trafficking case involving the sale of an infant girl denied due to the gravity of the offence and the accused's visible involvement in the alleged crime.
Statutory Provisions
Section 370 IPC (Trafficking of persons), Section 34 IPC (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), Section 81 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Rajkumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2970451
