The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of an infant, refusing to hand the child over to a claimant accused of buying the baby as part of an alleged child-trafficking ring.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi ruled that releasing the infant to an alleged trafficker would result in a travesty of justice. While the bench acknowledged that habeas corpus petitions for child custody can be maintained irrespective of whether an adoption deed is legally valid, it held that the criminal allegations against the petitioner rendered his plea without merit.
Judicial Findings and Context
In the order dated August 25, the court emphasized that it was not examining the validity of the adoption paperwork, nor was it determining the ultimate truth of the criminal charges, which remain a matter for the trial court to adjudicate. However, the bench noted that the petitioner was formally named as an accused in an ongoing child-trafficking investigation, making custody restoration impermissible.
Adoption Claims and Criminal Investigation
The dispute originates from December 2025, when the petitioner and his spouse took custody of the baby after the biological parents purportedly handed over the infant via a notarized adoption deed. In January 2026, local authorities issued a birth certificate listing the couple as the child’s parents.
On April 1, police registered a first information report alleging the operation of an organized syndicate involved in the illegal sale and trafficking of newborns. Investigators claimed the petitioner purchased the infant from a co-accused for Rs 8 lakh.
The petitioner joined the police probe on May 4, at which point authorities placed the infant into protective custody. Following directions from the Child Welfare Committee, the child was moved to a Specialised Adoption Agency.
Opposing Arguments Before the Bench
Representing the petitioner, advocate Sharanjeet Singh Bajwa argued that the couple had been raising the infant as their own son and had developed a profound emotional attachment to him. Bajwa contended that authorities had removed the child without adhering to proper statutory procedure, citing rulings from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court concerning the restoration of minors to adoptive parents.
Opposing the petition, Deputy Advocate General Diya Sodhi argued on behalf of the state that the child had been recovered during a criminal investigation into trafficking and was classified as an infant in need of care and protection. Sodhi told the court that the petitioner was directly accused in the FIR of purchasing the baby for Rs 8 lakh, and maintained that the child’s safety, welfare, and legal protection were the primary considerations warranting institutional care.
Finding no justification to grant custody to the accused petitioner, the court dismissed the habeas corpus plea.
