Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In an application for anticipatory bail for offences under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 95 and 112 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a Single-Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., in light of the allegations disclosing trafficking and exploitation of a child for criminal activities, coupled with petitioner’s active involvement in organized illegal trade and criminal antecedents, refused to grant anticipatory bail.
In the instant matter, the prosecution case originated from a patrol conducted by a constable who noticed the sale of illicit liquor in a narrow lane. When he attempted to apprehend the persons involved, the woman selling the liquor escaped, but a child present at the spot was apprehended along with a plastic bucket containing pouches of illicit liquor. Investigation revealed that the child had been brought to Delhi by the present applicant, who was closely related to the woman engaged in the illicit trade, and that the family was involved in the business of selling illicit liquor.
The defence contended that the principal accused had already been arrested, nothing was to be recovered from the applicant, and there was no material to show that the child had been brought to Delhi for the purpose of selling illicit liquor or that the applicant was connected with the sale. The State, on the other hand, asserted that the applicant was actively involved in the racket, had received monetary benefits and that custodial interrogation was necessary.
The Court reiterated that the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail are narrower than those for regular bail. The gravity of the offence, the requirement of custodial interrogation and the antecedents of the accused are relevant considerations.
The Court emphasised that the accusation was not confined to the sale of illicit liquor but extended to trafficking of a child “to be employed in the illicit business.” The Court described the exploitation of children in criminal activities as a matter of serious concern, and stated that hardened criminals were increasingly using children as a weapon to escape penal action.
“In the recent past, exploitation of children in commission of crimes is increasing day by day; children are now being often used as a weapon by the hardened criminals to escape penal action.”
The Court asserted that custodial interrogation was considered necessary to ascertain whether more children had been trafficked in a similar manner. The investigation was also examining the applicant’s PhonePe account, which allegedly reflected monetary transactions connected with the illegal activity.
The Court further took note of the applicant’s criminal antecedents, involvement in 17 similar cases and one case under the NDPS Act, and even subsequent involvement in additional cases, which weighed heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail.
While noting that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would “send very wrong signals across the society,” the Court held that it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
[Savitri v. State of Delhi, Bail Appln. 493/2026, Decided on 04-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Kedar Yadav and Sanya Verma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP, Counsel for the Respondent/State