The Delhi High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused in a criminal trafficking case, observing that exploiting children to commit crimes has become a worrying and increasing phenomenon that must be dealt with firmly by the criminal justice system. The petition was filed by the accused challenging the order of police arrest in the case registered at the Connaught Place police station under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The accused had sought anticipatory bail on the ground that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. He contended that there was no likelihood of the prosecution tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if he was not taken into custody.
The High Court examined the police report and the allegations as detailed in the First Information Report, which include serious charges of trafficking children for the purpose of committing robberies and other offences during street protests and similar events. According to the prosecution, the accused was part of a network that recruited minors, directed them to participate in criminal activities, and used their involvement as a shield against law enforcement, given the statutory protections accorded to children. The alleged modus operandi involved sending children into crowds or volatile situations where they would commit offences such as snatching mobile phones, bags, and cash, and then absconding before being apprehended, with the ultimate objective of generating unlawful gains and evading accountability.
The Court noted that the allegations, if proved, reveal a deeply distressing pattern where children are manipulated and used as instruments to perpetrate crimes, thereby exposing them to danger and criminal liability while shielding adult perpetrators. The prosecution submitted that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary given the seriousness of the offences and the need to unravel the network, identify other participants, and trace the involvement of organisers or masterminds behind the scheme. It was also argued that denial of anticipatory bail would not be disproportionate given the gravity of the allegations and the broader public interest in dismantling organised criminal activities that exploit minors.
In opposition, the defence argued that the accused had no criminal antecedents and that the allegations were based on preliminary statements that required verification. The counsel contended that the accused’s presence in custody was not necessary for the progress of investigation, and that granting anticipatory bail with conditions would adequately secure his cooperation and attendance during the investigation. The defence urged the High Court to consider the rights of the accused and the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted where there is no latent threat to the investigative process.
The High Court, after hearing arguments, declined to grant anticipatory bail. The bench, while doing so, remarked that offences involving children being used to commit crimes represent a “growing menace” that has serious implications for society and demands a robust investigative and prosecutorial response. It was noted that custodial interrogation in such matters may be crucial for extracting information, securing recovery of evidence, and effectively tracing and dismantling the wider criminal network.
The Court emphasised that the objective of anticipatory bail is not to provide safe passage to accused persons in the face of serious allegations where arrest may be essential for investigative efficacy and public safety. Given the nature and gravity of the charges, and the manner in which children are alleged to have been exploited, the bench held that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out as unnecessary at the preliminary stage.
Consequently, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, thereby permitting the police to proceed with arrest and custodial interrogation. The accused remains at risk of arrest in accordance with law, as custodial proceedings continue to unfold. By refusing anticipatory bail, the Court underscored the severity with which matters involving trafficking and exploitation of minors are to be treated, and conveyed the judiciary’s stance on upholding the integrity of investigation in crimes with deep societal impact.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.