Home » Blog » Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

By /

Authored By: ANTAVYA SINGH

Amity university lucknow campus

CHILD TRAFFICKING AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CHILDREN

Case Title: Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Citation: 2025 INSC 482; Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

Date of Judgement: April 15, 2025

Introduction

Child Trafficking is the action or practice of illegally procuring and relocating children, typically for the purpose of forced labor or sexual exploitation. This illegal practice is widely spread like a virus in our country and needs an immediate stringent solution for this issue. The Supreme Court’s adjudication in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another approaches one of the most serious and grave issue of child trafficking in India. This case scrutinizes the executive and judicial systemic failures particularly focusing on the premature granting of bail to the accused individuals involved in an interstate child trafficking racket. The judgement revokes the bail orders and establishes rigorous guidelines to prevent future lapses in similar cases.

Facts of the Case

The case unveils an extensive child trafficking network operating across multiple states of India, namely Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Bihar. There is a series of multiple FIRs (First Information Reports) registered in Varanasi under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Here, the victims were often poverty-stricken children who were kidnapped from pavements or streets while they were asleep. The children were then sold to DINKs[2] (Dual Income, No Kids) for amounts ranging from forty thousand rupees to ten lakhs.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to 13 accused individuals in these special cases citing factors such as the names not mentioned in the FIR[3], name of the accused disclosed by a co-accused, victim not being recovered from the custody, similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail, and bail is a rule, jail is an exception. Also, post-bail, several accused absconded raise serious concerns about public safety and the efficacy of the judicial process. These bail orders were then challenged by the victims’ families through Special Leave Petitions[4] before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

  1. Credibility of Bail Orders: Whether the Allahabad High Court errored in granting bail to the 13 accused without imposing safeguards and understanding of the accuracy of the facts.
  2. Role of the State: The contention is an assessment of the State of Uttar Pradesh’s response in the above case and its ineffectiveness to the appeal against the bail orders.
  3. Comprehensive Breakdown: The failure of law enforcement agencies and hospitals in examining the issues in handling child trafficking cases. The delay and absence of handling such cases leads to the breakdown of both the hospital and judicial systems.
  4. Approach towards Child Trafficking: What measure should be implemented to prevent child trafficking and ensure smooth justice?

Arguments

For the Appellants: (Pinki)

  • Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat argued that the accused were allies of a well-organized child trafficking network and emphasized the gravity of the offenses committed by the accused individuals.
  • The learned counsel called the attention of the court to mention that many accused after being released on bail have absconded and are nowhere to be found.
  • They highlighted the fact that if these accused return to their place of their work they would continue to indulge in such nefarious activities which constitute a very serious crime and create a public safety issue.

For the State of Uttar Pradesh:

  • Advocate Garvesh Kabra supported the appellant’s stance that accused absconded after being released on bail and did not appear before the court.
  • The learned counsel contended that bail was granted based on initial exclusion of some names from the FIRs and the lack of criminal records.
  • The learned counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the accused would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for its “callous approach” in granting bail without imposing stringent conditions, leading to the accused absconding. In Bachpan Bachao and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.[5], the bench observed that “17. trafficking in women and children is gravest form of abuse and exploitation of human being. The Indian Constitution specifically bans the trafficking of persons. Article 23, in the Fundamental Rights, Part III of the Constitution, prohibits “traffic in human beings and other similar forms of forced labour.” The Supreme Court emphasized broad principles for grant of bail. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor[6], the High Court of Andhra Pradesh elaborated on the content of Article 21[7] of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trail and laid down various key factors for granting bail that “7. it is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.” The Court considered the serious nature of the crime and the modus operandi adopted by the accused people the Supreme Court is of the view that the High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favor of the accused people. The Court also highlighted the outcome of this callous approach of the High Court, which paved the way for accused to abscond and thereby put the trial in jeopardy. The Court emphasized that personal liberty must be balanced with societal interests, especially in cases involving heinous crimes like child trafficking. The Court highlighted the comprehensive breakdown of the systemic failures, including the state’s lack of urgency in appealing the bail orders and the need for stricter oversight of such serious cases.

Decision

  • In the words of Philip Stanhope, “Judgement is not upon all occasions required, but discretion always is”.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court.
  • Directed all 13 accused to surrender before the committal court, which would remand them to judicial custody.
  • The Supreme Court directed the State Government to appoint three special public prosecutors for the purpose of conducting the trials well versed in criminal trails at the earliest.
  • The Court also directed the State Government to provide police protection to the victims and their families pending the trial at the earliest so as to prevent tampering of the evidence.
  • The Supreme Court issued the “SC Child Trafficking Guidelines 2025”, mandating:
  • Completion of child trafficking trials within six months conducting the trials on a day-to-day basis.
  • Implementation of the 20-point action plan from the BIRD (Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development) report, treating cases of missing children as potential trafficking or abduction until proven otherwise.
  • Immediate suspension of hospital licenses if found complicit in newborn trafficking.
  • High courts to monitor and ensure compliance with the directives mentioned above, submitting reports to the Supreme Court.

Significance

This judgment marks a huge impact in India’s fight against child trafficking. The judgement holds the judiciary and state authorities accountable for their negligence and shortcomings. The Supreme Court takes cognizance of the shortcomings of the authorities and sets a precedent for stringent measures against such crimes. The Supreme Court identified the prima facie evidence in this case and indicated the involvement of the illegal operations. This case gives the SC Child Trafficking Guidelines 2025 in the judgement enforcing strict provisions for implementation and methods of carrying our proceeding of cases involving child trafficking. The directives enforced by the Supreme Court aim to ensure swift justice, protect victims, and dismantle trafficking networks.

Conclusion

“Human trafficking is an open wound on the body of contemporary society, a scourge upon the body of Christ. It is a crime against humanity.” Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another plays a pivotal role in addressing systemic issues and failures of law governance agencies as well as lack of effective administration at hospitals. This case lays down various guidelines aiming to reform the legal as well as administrative approach of the various organizations in such kind of cases. This case is paramount to ensuring the rights and safety of children. This case will always be used as a guideline for future cases related to child trafficking and the protection of rights of children and for granting bail in such cases. Therefore, this case is one of the most important cases in deciding one of the most persistent issues in India.

Reference(S):

[1] Student at Amity University Lucknow Campus

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dink

[3] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), (46 of 2023), section 173.

[4] Article 136, Constitution of India

[5] 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4613.  

[6] 1978 1 SCC 240.

[7] Constitution of India, Article 12 (Protection of life and personal liberty)

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top