Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

“Today on 02/06/2023, I SI Saurabh Pandey along with my companion SI Vaibhav Shukla, Constable Anuj Kushvaha and Lady Constable Rubi Singh, departed from Police Station Cantt, Commissionerate Varanasi on dated 29/05/23 via GD 070 for investigation of present case and in hope of recovery of kidnapped child and arrest of accused as per the information provided by the accused arrested in FIR no. 193/23 Under Section 363/177/370(5) IPC namely Shikha Gupta and Manish Kumar Jain etc, for searching and clue, reached at Police Station Chandwara, District Kodarma, Jharkhand on 30/05/2023 and with the help of local police were busy in attempt to recovery of child and arrest of accused, then from Police Station Cantt constable Prem Shankar Patel and SI Anand Chaurasiya, Constable Sachin Singh, Constable Sumit Sahi Police Station Bhelupur, Commissionerate Varanasi and SI Ram Upadhyay, Constable Ejaz Hussain Police Station Chetganj, Commissionerate Varanasi met us at Chandwara Highway in search of kidnapped children and in search of clue. At that time from Prayagraj Police SI Pavan Kumar Singh with his companions SI Vikas Yadav with SOG SI Dinesh Singh, Constable Rakesh Dube, Constable Piyush Vajpeyi, Driver Manoj Kumar Singh in vehicle no. UP70AG2572, with team in search of child Shani Bind related to FIR no. 76/23 under Section 363 IPC Police Station Daraganj, Commissionerate Prayagraj, met with us. There only, Inspector Madhav from Mirzapur police along  with Head Constable Lal ji Yadav, Constable Brij Kishore Sharma, SI Daya Shankar Ojha, lady Constable Raksha Yadav, Driver Constable Prabhu Narayan with vehicle UP 32 BG 7504 in FIR no. 74/23 Under Section 363 IPC Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur for searching the kidnapped child Kajal, met with us. We all police officials after sharing the information about kidnapped children and arrest of accused, with the help of Chanwara Police, for searching of kidnapped children and arrest of accused, were present at highway. Then an informer came and told us that Anuradha Nurse, you are searching for, is present at highway in front of Global Nursing home for going somewhere, if you move immediately then she might be caught. On believing this information, after joint planning, we all police officials moved ahead with informer. On highway only, signalling towards a lady, the informer told that she is Anuradha Nurse whom you are searching and then the informer went away from there. Then we police officials went ahead towards that lady. That lady was enquired about her name and address with the help of lady constable Rubi Singh and also was searched. Then she stated her name as Anuradha Devi wife of Yogender Singh aged 37 years resident of Village and Post Office Lupung, Police Station Katkam Sandi, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. While searching two android mobile were found from her left hand (1) Oppo CPH2269, IMEI No. 86205005576687J/S62050055766881 and (2) Samsung SM-GEIOF, IMEI- 358972081446914/358973081446912 were recovered. Informing about the above-mentioned incident, questions were asked from above mentioned Anuradha, then she told that I have purchased many children through Madan Baranwal, Manish Jain, Jagvir Baranwal, Ghanshyam and Gudiya and sold ahead. Then I, the SI, asked her about the child who was stolen from Nadesar Cantt after showing his picture in the mobile then she said that this one year baby was sold to me by Jagvir in 2.5 Lakh rupees. I have sold this child further in 3.5 lakh through Kuldeep Paswan resident of Markacho to his some known one. After that the picture of the child stolen from Prayagraj was shown to Anuradha and she replied that she had sold this child to Santosh Sao of Majhgawan and still the child is with him. Thereafter Bhelupur police and SI Ram Upadhyay asked her about the girl child stolen from  Choukaghat, Varanasi, then she said that about this girl, only Madan Baranwal can tell you about this child who is the relative of Jagvir and Manish Jain. After that the Mirzapur police showed the picture of the girl child kidnapped from their area and enquired about her, then Anuradha said that Jagvir and Gudia had sold a four-five years old child to her in 45 thousand rupees and she sold her to Sangeeta wife of Tulsi Rana resident of Pogdanda working at Health sub center. I was involved in the purchase and sale of many other children. I can get recovered the children kept with Santosh and Sangeeta and can get Jagvir and Gudia arrested. Thereafter, after keeping Anuradha under supervision, we reached the place told by her at Manjhgawa at the house of Santosh Sav where Anuradha signalled towards a person who was carrying a child and told that this is the same child who was stolen from Prayagraj. On this we police officials enquired about the child from Santosh Sav through different questions. He stated his name as Santosh Sav son of Bihari Sav aged 37 years, resident of Manjhgawa, Post Office Kako, Police Station Tilaiya Dam, District Kodarma, Jharkhand and when he was asked about the child strictly then he stated that he purchased the child for Rs. 4 lakh from that Anuradha who has come with you. Thereafter SI Pavan Kumar Singh sent the photo of child to her parents and got the child identified through video call from his father Vishnu Bind where he identified the child as his son Shani Nishad and the child also started weeping after getting emotional while seeing his parents on video call. Thereafter the child was taken in security by Constable Piyush Vajpeyi and Santosh Sav was kept in supervision of Constable Rakesh.

16. There are sporadic reports of cases of kidnapping for placing children in adoption. A documentary filmmaker has written about cases in China where children went missing/were kidnapped and placed in adoptions in the United States.4 There are various reports of Ukrainian children being kidnapped and placed in Russia and Guatemalan children kidnapped and placed in illegal adoptions abroad.

22. It is critical to note the number of cases that were tracked in such a short time span. This indicates that these kidnappings have been taking place in large numbers on a regular basis and there is an urgent need to consolidate these cases and examine them to be able to identify patterns.

23. Child selling is not new to this country. There was a time when children were being sold as part of inter-country adoptions and this Court had passed detailed judgements acknowledging the same. This Court in Lakshmi Kant  Pandey v. Union of India reported in (1984) 2 SCC 244 dealt with the issue of malpractices and trafficking in children in connection with adoption of Indian children by foreigners and its commercialisation. This Court took note of the fact that large amounts were being demanded by ill-equipped and sometimes even undesirable organisations or individuals camouflaging trafficking and sale of children as inter-country adoption. In order to protect the welfare of children, this Court, in consultation with several social and child welfare institutions, laid out a comprehensive framework of normative and procedural safeguards for regulating inter-country adoption as protection against abuse, maltreatment or exploitation of children and to secure them a healthy, decent family life. While formulating standards and procedures, this Court referenced various relevant laws and policies including Articles 15(3), 24, and 39 of the Indian Constitution regarding child welfare, and the principles embodied in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959). The delineated safeguards include, amongst several others, the requirement that foreigners wishing to adopt be sponsored by relevant licensed agencies in their own country, that no adoption application from a foreigner should be entertained directly by any adoption agency in India, that agencies working on inter-country adoptions and licensed by the Government of India must meet certain stipulated criteria and undertake specific responsibilities in ensuring the safety and  wellbeing of adopted children, and that all inter-country adoption proceedings must be approved by the local courts.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is pointed out that these cases pertain to child trafficking racket involving kidnapping and selling of minor children. The activities of the accused spread across the States of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan. The affidavit also indicates the nature of evidence that has been collected by the Police and it is averred that those will show the complicity of accused.