Delhi HC Deprecates Selective Arrest Policy, Rejects Bail in Trafficking Case

Policy of Police Of Pick And Choose Which Accused To Arrest Must Be Deprecated: Delhi HC

Summary: The Delhi High Court in Rajkumar vs State (NCT of Delhi), Neutral Citation No. 2026:DHC:7282, pronounced on 31.08.2026, rejected the regular bail application of an accused in FIR No. 293/2024 of Police Station Nangloi concerning alleged child trafficking offences under Section 370 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 81 of the JJ Act. The Court deprecated the State’s policy of selectively arresting some accused persons and observed that police should clearly state whether they intend to arrest an accused, although the Court cannot direct police to make or refrain from an arrest. The applicant contended that he had been in custody for two and a half years, public witnesses had been examined, co-accused Deepika had been granted bail and alleged main accused Kulvinder Kaur had not been arrested. The Court nevertheless held that failure to arrest another accused could not justify ignoring the gravity of the alleged offence. It also described the investigators’ role as “highly appalling” because the allegedly trafficked girl child had not been recovered or rescued. The concerned DCP was directed to ensure that the child is rescued at the earliest and to file a status report within four weeks. Considering the overall circumstances, the Court dismissed the bail application.

Delhi High Court Deprecates Selective Arrest of Accused

While upholding the age old maxim that, “Be you ever so high, the law stands above you”, we see that none other than the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Rajkumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) in CNR No. DLHC010273822026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:7282 that was pronounced just recently on 31.08.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to make it indubitably clear that the police cannot selectively arrest some of the accused persons and the policy of picking and choosing persons to be taken into custody must be deprecated. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia was most unequivocal in holding that the police must clearly state whether it wants to arrest a person or not. We need to note that the Delhi High Court made the key observation while rejecting a bail application of one Rajkumar who is an accused in a child trafficking case.

Regular Bail Application in Child Trafficking Case

At the very outset, this elegant, exemplary, explicit erudite and effective oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The accused/applicants seek regular bail in case FIR No. 293/2024 of Police Station Nangloi for offence under Section 370/34 IPC and 81 JJ Act.”

As we see, the Bench then points out in para 2 of this robust judgment that, “Status report was not filed. However, at request of both sides, I have heard the arguments.”

Prosecution Allegation of Child Trafficking

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 of this brilliant judgment that, “Broadly speaking, the prosecution allegation is that the accused/applicant is involved in child trafficking. According to prosecution, the accused/applicant and co-accused Gayatri impersonated as husband and wife, and they took an infant girl in adoption. Thereafter, they sold away the said girl infant to co-accused Deepika, who sold away the child further.”

Applicant’s Arguments and State’s Opposition to Bail

As things stands, on the one hand, the Bench observes in para 4 of this notable judgment that, “Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is in custody for past two and a half years and all public witnesses stand examined in trial. Learned counsel for accused/applicant vehemently denies any incriminating role as alleged by prosecution. It is contended by learned counsel that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated simply because he happens to be paternal uncle of the co-accused Deepika, who has been granted bail. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the main accused Dr. Kulvinder Kaur has not been arrested by the police till date, so the accused/applicant deserves the relief sought.”

On the other hand, the Bench then mentions in para 5 of this bold judgment that, “Learned APP for State, assisted by Investigating Officer/Inspector Puneet Bhati and SI Ashok Kumar, strongly opposes the bail application in view of nature of the offence. Further, it is submitted by learned APP for State on instructions of the Investigating Officer that the accused/applicant is clearly visible in photographs while taking custody of the adopted infant. As regards co-accused Dr. Kulvinder Kaur, I have asked the Investigating Officer/SI Ashok Kumar to explain her status, but in this regard submission of learned counsel for accused/applicant appears to be correct that police is taking practically no action against Dr. Kulvinder Kaur.”

Police Cannot Pick and Choose Which Accused to Arrest

Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most commendably, we observe that the Bench then encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this most refreshing judgment postulating precisely that, “Of course, the policy of the State to selectively arrest some of the accused persons cannot be approved. The police should clearly state as to whether they want to arrest an accused or not. The Court cannot direct the police to do or not to do so. Such kind of pick and choose in matter of arrest must be deprecated. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned DCP to look into the matter.” Absolutely right. No denying or disputing it!

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “At this stage, learned APP for State submits that they shall ensure that Dr. Kulvinder Kaur is arrested. It seems that now the State realizes the gravity of the alleged offence.”

Most rationally, the Bench opines in para 8 holding that, “I am of the considered view that merely because for some unknown reason, the police opted not to arrest one of the accused persons, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the gravity of the alleged offence.”

Court Examines Gravity of Alleged Child Trafficking

It cannot be just glossed over that the Bench then lays bare in para 9 of this progressive judgment pointing out that, “One has to understand that every time custody of an infant is taken away from her biological mother, followed by the adoptive parent, followed further by other persons as happened in the present case, the infant suffers tremendous dent in her psyche, which gets manifested in her personality at some future stage. That too, in a case of present kind, provided the trafficked infant is not exploited for multiple reasons by the end purchaser.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 of this pertinent judgment that, “It is also part of the prosecution case that the said girl infant was the sixth girl child in the family of her biological parents. As mentioned above, the accused/applicant is visible in the photographs while accepting the girl infant in presence of biological parents of the infant. Admittedly, the accused/applicant now does not have custody of that infant, who was adopted by him. The prima facie impression is that as alleged by prosecution, the girl infant was sold away.”

Investigators’ Role Termed Highly Appalling

Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 11 of this pragmatic judgment mandating, directing and holding that, “In this regard, the role played by the investigators in this case is highly appalling. Till date, the allegedly trafficked girl child has not been recovered/rescued by police. On this aspect also, copy of this order be sent to the concerned DCP to make sure that the said girl child is rescued at the earliest. In this regard, status report shall be filed by the concerned DCP within four weeks.”

Parity With Co-Accused Deepika Rejected

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 12 of this balanced judgment noting that, “Learned counsel for accused/applicant also seeks parity with co-accused Deepika. But as correctly pointed out by learned APP for State, Deepika was granted bail for the reasons completely distinct from the present case and also admittedly, Deepika is not visible in the photographs while accepting the infant girl.”

It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then deems it fit to note in para 13 of this remarkable judgment that, “At this stage, learned APP for State submits that Kulvinder Kaur is not even a doctor, but an unqualified nurse. The fact remains that there is no explanation for the selective arrest of the accused persons involved in the present case.”

Bail Application Dismissed

Resultantly, the Bench then also deems it fit to direct and hold in para 14 of this rational judgment that, “Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. The bail application is dismissed.”

Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 15 of this noteworthy judgment that, “Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant immediately.”

Need for Impartial and Transparent Police Functioning

In conclusion, it is high time that the police pay heed to what is held so very explicitly by the Delhi High Court in this leading case and shun the most reprehensible trend to pick and choose which accused to arrest. This “pick and choose” selective policy of police has been the most root cause of tarnishing the reputation of the police and denting its credibility in the eyes of the people which definitely cannot any longer now be brushed beneath the carpet! It has to be not only just strongly condemned but strictest action must be taken against the erring police officials!

It also certainly merits just no reiteration and so also is a no-brainer that the police has to be beyond a straw of doubt completely impartial and transparent in its style of functioning as this alone can prove to be the single biggest factor to enhance its credibility in the eyes of the people which is undoubtedly now the crying need of the hour also! In addition, the police needs to be more swift in its functioning as has been highlighted and lamented by the Delhi High Court in this notable judgment. We saw in this recent judgment that the Delhi police was at a complete loss to explain that why Kulvinder Kaur was not arrested.

Most alarmingly, the Delhi High Court very rightly lamented that the role played by the “investigators in this case is highly appalling” since they have inexplicably failed to recover the trafficked child even two years after the FIR was registered which is definitely a very serious matter. This is definitely most shocking indeed to watch! One fervently expects that the Delhi police will at least now always make sure that in future such lapses are not made ever as has been pointed out so manifestly by the Delhi High Court in this praiseworthy judgment!