52 children rescued, youngest 2, court rejects bail in trafficking case

The man had challenged a June 8 order of the Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ranchi, rejecting his plea in connection with a child trafficking case.

Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Arun Kumar Rai heard a bail matter in a child trafficking case.

Child trafficking: 52 children recovered

According to the prosecution, the police received information from the technical branch and the investigating officer of another case that four persons, including the appellant, were travelling from Ranchi to Latehar in a vehicle with children allegedly for trafficking. 

The vehicle was intercepted by the police at Sithio, following which allegedly disclosed that children were being kept at Kothar in Ramgarh and Balumath in Latehar. Based on this information, two police teams were constituted, and raids were conducted following which 52 children were recovered. Thereafter, a case was instituted against the appellant and other accused.

Senior Counsel A K Kashyap for the appellant submitted that he was in custody since January 18, 2026, and that he had two houses at Silli and Ramgarh. Still, no victim had been recovered from either house. 

Kashyap submitted that the appellant had two wives and five children born out of each of the wives; as such, these children are not the abducted children or belonging to any person other than himself. The children recovered from the house of the appellant’s father were all closely related to him. 

‘Appeal rejected’

The court, after perusing the case diary, observed that the investigation revealed the gang was involved in child lifting and engaging the children in beggary and theft. It added that some of the children recovered were below the age of ten.

The court noted that the man’s confessional statement stated that some children were kept at Silli, following which several children were recovered. The court held that the man appeared to be actively involved in human trafficking and the gang’s linkage had spread to the other states as well. 

The court took note of the man’s criminal antecedents, and considering allegations against him and his role attributed to the crime, declined to interfere with the order rejecting his bail and dismissed his appeal.