Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025) 

Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025) 

“Child Trafficking Trials to Be Completed Within 6 Months; Issues Guidelines to States for Effective Case Handling.” 

  • Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court in this landmark judgement of Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. addressed the issues and gaps which are found in handling child trafficking cases. The Apex Court has criticised Allahabad High Court and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for botching the child trafficking case. The Court has also laid down some guidelines and directions to curb child trafficking in the country. 

Brief details of Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025)

Name of the casePinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Case numberCrl.A. No.-001927-001927 – 2025
Parties of the caseAppellant –  Pinki
Respondent – State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Equivalent citationsCriminal Appeal No. 1927 Of 2025
Type of the caseCriminal Appeal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Statutes and provisions involved in the caseArticle 21 of Indian ConstitutionSection 370 and 370A of Indian Penal Code (now Sections 143 and 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)
BenchJustice JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Judgement date 15/4/25 

Background of the case

The victims’ families had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to cancel the bail granted to thirteen people who were accused by the High Court. All the accused were informed regarding the case; however, only three of the accused showed up. The other accused ran away after the bail was granted to them, and the police were not able to find them. The present case involves child trafficking of minor children, along with selling and buying children.

The minor children who are the victims were kidnapped when they were sleeping on the streets with their parents. The accused were a part of a child trafficking racket amounting to 5,00,000 to 10,00,000 from different states. 

Legal provisions involved

Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Constitution talks about protection of life and personal liberty. In this case, the right to live is directly violated for the children who were the victims of child trafficking. They were kidnapped and sold, which violated their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has stressed that it is the duty of the state to protect such rights of the children. 

Section 370  and 370A of the Indian Penal Code 

Section 370 and 370A of Indian Penal Code (now Sections 143 and 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) deal with trafficking of persons and exploitation of a person who is a victim of trafficking. Both of these provisions are attracted under this case, as there was the kidnapping, selling and buying of minor children for illegal purposes. 

Issues raised in Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025)

  1. Whether it was right of the High Court to grant bail to the accused?
  2. Whether the delay made in committal hindered timely justice delivery?
  3. Whether the granting of bail to the accused and their absconding gravely affected the trial?
  4. Is selling trafficked children for money considered a grave violation of children’s rights?

Contentions of parties in Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025)

Petitioner’s contentions

The petitioners have argued that granting bail to the accused of the case (some who are directly involved in the case, like nurses of the hospital) poses a serious risk and violates the rights of victims while preventing any justice from prevailing. The accused, on getting bail, will return to their workplaces and can commit the same crimes again in the future.

Respondent’s contentions

The representative of the State of Uttar Pradesh has supported the arguments of the petitioners. It was noted that the information of the whereabouts of many accused was unknown, which has complicated the case. The respondents were not able to provide justifiable counterarguments to the petitioners. 

Judgment in Pinki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025)

The Supreme Court was very unhappy with the way the Allahabad High Court dealt with the case and granted the bail to the accused so carelessly without setting any conditions. The court also partly blamed the State of Uttar Pradesh for not challenging such a decision of the High Court. The court then cancelled the bail granted to the 13 accused and ordered immediate surrender. 

Guidelines given by Supreme Court

  1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Varanasi have to send all three cases to the Sessions Court within a period of 2 weeks.
  2. The charges are to be framed by the Session Court as soon as they get the case in one week.
  3. The court must issue a non-bailable warrant for the accused who are missing, and their trial shall be held separately. Trials of the present accused should not be delayed. 
  4. The trial should be taken daily, and the case must be finished within 6 months.
  5. Three experienced public prosecutors are to be appointed promptly by the state government to handle the cases.
  6. During the trial of the case, police protection must be given to the victim’s family. 
  7. The court has given the police two months’ time to find, arrest and bring the accused who are missing to the court.
  8. The children who were victims of child trafficking should be sent to school, as they have the right to education, and support of the same must be provided. 
  9. Fair compensation as per the new criminal laws [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] must be provided to the victim and their families when the trial ends. 
  10.  Recommendation given in the BIRD report from April 12, 2023, must be read by all state governments, and they should act according to it. 
  11. All the High Courts have to gather information on pending child trafficking cases and finish them within 6 months. 
  12. A report is to be sent to the Apex Court by the High Courts in relation to the status of all the child trafficking cases. 
  13. Failure to comply with these orders will result in strict actions and possibly contempt of court. 
  14. If any newborn is trafficked directly from the hospital, the hospital’s licence must be suspended effective immediately. 

Conclusion

A very significant step is taken by the Supreme Court to deal with increasing cases of child trafficking in India. The Apex Court has openly criticised the failure of the system when the accused were granted bail by the High Court. With this case, a precedent has been set for cases of similar nature. The directions given by the Supreme Court show the grave seriousness of the situation. The main aim is to ensure justice, take swift decisions, hold the authorities accountable and provide help to the victims and their families. 

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in