Highlighting the “serious societal impact” of child trafficking, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by a nursing officer accused of facilitating the illegal sale of a $2\frac{1}{2}$-month-old infant. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that while the applicant was not arrested during the investigation, the prayer for bail must be considered on its own merits in cases where the alleged offenses carry significant penalties.
Background of the Case
The matter pertains to FIR No. 24/2025 registered at Police Station Shastri Park under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—including Sections 137(2), 143(4), 143(7), 61, and 3(5)—and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The prosecution’s case is that on June 4, 2025, a male infant was kidnapped from his mother, a beggar at Seelampur Metro Station, by co-accused Devaki. After failing to find a buyer elsewhere, Devaki allegedly approached the applicant, Shirley John, a nursing officer at a maternity and child care center in Mandawali, to arrange an “adoption.” John allegedly utilized her domestic help, Sheela, to find buyers (Dheer Singh and Baneeta) who were seeking a male child. The infant was eventually recovered from the possession of Singh and Baneeta on November 24, 2025, following a transaction allegedly involving ₹1.5 lakhs.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Shirley John argued that as a public servant and a woman, she had fully cooperated with the investigation and had not been arrested during the initial phase because no incriminating evidence was found. He emphasized that the child was not recovered from her possession, no money was traced to her, and there was no evidence of her direct involvement in the kidnapping. He further asserted that she posed no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The learned APP for the State strongly opposed the bail, contending that John was “actively involved in the trafficking” of the infant. The prosecution argued that as a nursing officer at a maternity center, John was well-versed in legal adoption procedures yet allegedly facilitated an illegal sale. Crucially, the prosecution presented evidence that photographs of the child being handed over were taken inside John’s office at the medical care center—a fact corroborated by the center’s in-charge.
Court’s Analysis: Non-Arrest and Bail Merits
The Court addressed the primary contention that the applicant’s non-arrest during the investigation should favor the grant of bail. Referring to the legal principles established in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), Justice Sharma observed:
“At the outset, though it is not disputed that the present applicant Shirley John was not arrested during investigation, the prayer for bail after filing of the chargesheet is nonetheless required to be considered on its own merits in light of the material collected during investigation as per the decision of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI: (2022) 10 SCC 51, since the alleged offences in the present case are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.”
The Court noted that the “chain of circumstances” appeared complete, linking the kidnapper to the nursing officer through photographs allegedly taken in her office. The statement of the medical center’s in-charge confirmed that the photographs, depicting the handover of the child, pertained to John’s specific office room.
Observations on Child Trafficking
Justice Sharma also emphasized the gravity of child trafficking, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pinky v. State (2025 INSC 482):
“This Court also cannot lose sight of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court… wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that offences relating to trafficking and illegal sale of children are grave offences having serious societal impact and are required to be viewed with due seriousness while considering prayer for bail.”
The Court found that the role attributed to the applicant—facilitating the illegal transfer of a kidnapped infant for money—was of a nature that demanded heightened scrutiny, regardless of her conduct during the investigation phase.
Decision
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma concluded that given the nature of the allegations, the professional role of the applicant, and the pending FSL report on the recovered photographs, bail could not be granted at this stage.
The Court dismissed the application but granted Shirley John seven days to surrender before the learned Trial Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Shirley John v. State of NCT of Delhi
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1671/2026 & CRL.M.A. 13447/2026
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: May 07, 2026
