CASE TITLE: Pinki vs State Of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025)

CITATION: 2025 INSC 48, CRIMINAL APPEAL NI. 1927 OF 2025

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

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 15^th April,2025

INTRODUCTION

The case Pinki vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another has delivered a landmark ruling and has redefined the legal treatment of child trafficking. The landmark case revolves around the exposure of a major interstate child trafficking racket in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

The victims in the case were vulnerable children belonging to an impoverished family who lived in deplorable conditions. Most of them were kidnapped while sleeping alongside their parents on the pavement or, roadside platform. Among them was a four-year-old named Rohit, who had been resting beside his family when he was taken away, and a one-year-old infant girl named Mohini was abducted.

The case gained attention due to its nature, involvement of multiple accused and procedural delay that obstructed justice. The case even scrutinises the judicial failure, especially focusing on the premature granting of bail to the accused who were involved in interstate child trafficking.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The present case[1] Revolves around the grave instance of inter-state child trafficking that came to light in Varanasi. After granting bail to 13 accused by the Allahabad High Court, the case was escalated to the Supreme Court, as several of the accused absconded, creating a major hurdle in the proceedings. to the investigation and the conduct of the trial.

2. There is a series of multiple FIR[2](s) (No. 201/2023, 193/2023, 76/2023, 74/2023, and 50/2023) were registered at various police stations in Varanasi for offences under Sections 363, 311, and 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code. 

3. The trafficking operation was highly organised in terms of kidnapping, transporting across the state border, and a few acted as agents who sells these children to DINKS[3]

4. The chargesheet was submitted before the special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court NO. 5  in and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi. The case remains pending and has not been commenced in the session court. The procedural delay in the session court obstructed justice.

5. On 20 March 2025, a trafficked child was successfully recovered from the custody of the accused, Anil Prasad Barnawal, in Kolkata, West Bengal.”This rescue was facilitated through the direct intervention of the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. LEGITIMACY OF BAIL ORDER: Whether the Allahabad High Court acted in error by granting bail to the 13 accused without applying the necessary safeguard, properly assessing the correctness of the facts.
2. Implementation and contempt: In Pinki vs the State of Uttar Pradesh, the court considered whether the recommendations of BIRD[4] Reports are binding on all States and Union Territories, and ignoring or failing to comply with the directives of the Supreme Court amounts to contempt of court.
3. Structural Breakdown: Whether the ineffective response of police authorities and hospitality in addressing child trafficking cases, coupled with persistent delays and inaction, has led to the collapse of both the medical support system and the justice delivery mechanism.
4. Measure towards Child Trafficking: What significant measures should be implemented to prevent child trafficking and ensure smooth justice.

CONTENTION

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.[5]

For the Appellants: (Pinki)

1. Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat argued that the accused was closely connected to a structured and organised child trafficking racket
2. She highlighted the seriousness and gravity of crimes committed by the accused individuals.
3. The council drew the court’s attention to the fact that many of the accused, once released on bail, have absconded and remain untraceable.
4. It was submitted that their disappearance has obstructed the proper course of investigation and trial.
5. She further stressed that if these individuals are allowed to resume their normal activities, they are likely to continue engaging in child trafficking, thereby posing a grave risk to both society and public racket.

For the state of Uttar Pradesh:

1. Advocate Garavesh Kabra supported the appellant’s argument that served accused, after being granted bail, absconded and failed to appear before the court.
2. He pointed out that the bail had been granted primarily because certain names were initially left out of the FIRs.
3. The counsel further noted that the absence of prior criminal records was also considered while granting bail.
4. He emphasised that the decision overlooked the risk posed by the accused once released.
5. The counsel also argued that the reasoning was based on the view that there was no concrete proof that the accused would interfere with evidence or threaten witnesses.

  RATIONALE

1. Failure of the High Court – The Allahabad High Court granted bail without stringent conditions, allowing accused persons to abscond, endangering the trial process.
2. Gravity of the offence – Child trafficking was recognised as one of the gravest forms of human rights violations, prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.
3. Balance of liberty and society – The Court stressed that personal liberty under Article 21 must be weighed against the protection of society, especially in heinous crimes.
4. Judicial accountability – The judgment sought to hold courts accountable for a “callous approach” in bail matters involving severe offences.
5. Systemic urgency – The Court emphasised speedy trials by directing completion of cases within six months on a day-to-day basis.
6. Victim protection – Police protection was mandated for victims and their families to prevent intimidation and tampering of evidence.
7. Specialised prosecution – Appointment of three experienced public prosecutors was directed to ensure competence in handling sensitive trials.
8. Rehabilitation of victims – Children rescued from trafficking must be sent to school, ensuring enforcement of their Right to Education.
9. Accountability of state machinery – The Court highlighted the state’s negligence in failing to appeal against faulty bail orders in time.
10. Preventive measures – The Supreme Court observed that the licence of the hospital must be suspended if any newborn infant is trafficked from such hospital.[6]

DEFECTS OF LAW

1. Inadequate bail scrutiny – High Courts often grant bail mechanically in grave offences without applying strict conditions, enabling accused to flee.
2. Delay in state response – Lack of prompt action by the state in challenging bail orders shows systemic inefficiency.
3. Weak victim protection framework – No robust mechanism existed earlier to shield victims and their families during trials.
4. Lack of specialized prosecutors – Sensitive trafficking cases were often handled by general prosecutors with limited expertise.
5. Absence of uniform trial timelines – Until this judgment, no fixed timeline for child trafficking trials existed, leading to delays.
6. Inadequate enforcement of compensation laws – Victims and their families rarely received fair compensation despite statutory provisions.
7. Poor inter-agency coordination – Courts, police, and state authorities failed to act in sync, leading to loopholes in the justice delivery system.
8. Negligence in missing children cases – Many cases of missing children were not treated as potential trafficking, causing investigative lapses.
9. Hospital complicity unchecked – No strict legal deterrents previously existed for hospitals involved in newborn trafficking.
10. Judicial complacency – The case highlighted how discretionary powers (e.g., bail) are sometimes exercised without due caution, undermining justice in serious crimes.

INFERENCE
1. Recognition of Human Trafficking as a Grave Crime – The Supreme Court acknowledged child trafficking as a crime against humanity, reflecting its deep social, moral, and legal consequences.

2.  Systemic Lapses Highlighted – The case exposed the negligence and inefficiency of law enforcement agencies, hospitals, and administrative bodies in handling trafficking matters.

3.  Criticism of Bail Grant by High Court – The Apex Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s decision to release the accused on bail, stressing that such leniency weakens the justice process and allows traffickers to evade accountability.

4.  Guidelines for Future Cases – The judgment laid down crucial directions to guide future cases involving trafficking, particularly concerning the granting of bail, ensuring that victims’ safety is prioritised over leniency towards accused persons.

5.  Implementation of BIRD Report – By directing the enforcement of the BIRD report’s recommendations, the Court signalled the need for structured reforms and a victim-centric approach.

6.  Emphasis on Speedy Trials – The Court stressed the importance of time-bound trials in trafficking cases to deliver swift justice and prevent the prolonged suffering of victims.

7.  Victim Protection and Rehabilitation – Safeguarding the dignity, rights, and welfare of trafficked children was recognised as the central aim of judicial and administrative action.

8.  Accountability of Authorities – The ruling reinforced that failure of institutions to protect children cannot be overlooked and that state agencies must be held accountable for lapses.

9.  Precedent for Future Jurisprudence – The case set a binding precedent for courts across India, ensuring stricter scrutiny in trafficking cases and stronger protection of child rights.

10.  Seriousness of Judicial Response – The overall tone of the Supreme Court reflected the urgent need to treat trafficking cases with utmost seriousness, creating a framework of justice that is both responsive and humane.

AYUSH CHOUDHARY

THREE YEAR LLB

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPANAM

---

[1] Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2025 INSC 482.

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

[3] Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dink

[4]  Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD), https://birdindia.in/

[5] Swasti Chaturvedi, Parents Must Be Vigilant With Their Children: Supreme Court Cautions On Gangs Engaged In Child Trafficking, VERDICTUM (April 15 2025, 5:30 PM), https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/pinki-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2025-insc-482-gangs-of-child-trafficking-1574275

[6] Swasti Chaturvedi, Licence Of Hospital Must Be Suspended If Any Newborn Infant Is Trafficked From There: Supreme Court, VERDICTUM (April 15 2025, 4:30 PM), https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/pinki-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2025-insc-482-child-trafficking-newborns-hospitals-1574267