Child exploitation in crime rising; granting anticipatory bail would send 'very wrong signals': Delhi High Court rejects woman's plea

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a woman accused of trafficking a child to Delhi and using him in an illicit liquor racket observing that the exploitation of children in criminal activities is "increasing day by day" and that granting anticipatory bail in such cases would send "very wrong signals across society".

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the plea filed by the accused in connection with the FIR registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar under provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, Juvenile Justice Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

According to the prosecution, the case arose after a constable on patrol spotted illicit liquor being sold in a narrow lane. A woman allegedly selling liquor fled, while a child found at the spot was apprehended with pouches of illicit liquor.

During the investigation, it emerged that the child had been brought to Delhi by the applicant, who is a close relative of the woman caught at the scene, and that the family was engaged in the illegal liquor trade.

Counsel for the applicant argued that since the woman who was allegedly selling liquor had already been arrested and nothing was to be recovered from the applicant, her custodial arrest was unnecessary.

It was further contended that the only allegation against the applicant was that she brought the child to Delhi, with no material to show that she brought him for illegal liquor sale or was involved in the business.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the investigation indicated the applicant's active involvement in the racket and that she had received money from the illegal activity.

The Court, however, emphasised the seriousness of the allegations, noting that the case was not merely about illegal liquor sale but about trafficking a child from his native place to employ him in unlawful activities. It underlined that anticipatory bail requires stricter scrutiny and cannot be granted lightly in such circumstances.

The Bench also held that custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary to ascertain whether more children had been trafficked in a similar manner for use in crimes. Investigators are also examining the applicant's PhonePe account for alleged monetary transactions linked to the racket.

The Court further noted that the applicant was involved in 17 other cases of a similar nature, apart from one case under the NDPS Act, and that she was implicated in two more cases even after the present FIR. In view of these circumstances, the High Court held that it was not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.