Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Bail for Woman Accused of Child Trafficking
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an interim bail application filed by a woman accused of involvement in a child trafficking and forgery racket. The accused, a single mother, sought temporary release on humanitarian grounds, arguing that she had not seen her two children since September 2025 and needed to support them during crucial educational stages. Her counsel emphasized the emotional distress caused by prolonged separation. However, Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the plea, stating that the responsibility of childcare is a continuous, perpetual obligation that does not justify temporary release from serious criminal charges. The court noted that the grounds presented were too generic, observing that children would still require care after the proposed 30-day period. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting the severity of the charges and noting that the trial is under Supreme Court monitoring. This ruling contrasts with a previous decision where the same court granted bail to another accused due to a child's critical medical condition, distinguishing between general caregiving needs and specific health emergencies requiring maternal presence.
Wire timeline
Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Bail for Woman Accused of Child Trafficking
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an interim bail application filed by a woman accused of involvement in a child trafficking and forgery racket. The accused, a single mother, sought temporary release on humanitarian grounds, arguing that she had not seen her two children since September 2025 and needed to support them during crucial educational stages. Her counsel emphasized the emotional distress caused by prolonged separation. However, Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the plea, stating that the responsibility of childcare is a continuous, perpetual obligation that does not justify temporary release from serious criminal charges. The court noted that the grounds presented were too generic, observing that children would still require care after the proposed 30-day period. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting the severity of the charges and noting that the trial is under Supreme Court monitoring. This ruling contrasts with a previous decision where the same court granted bail to another accused due to a child's critical medical condition, distinguishing between general caregiving needs and specific health emergencies requiring maternal presence.
The Indian Express