MP High Court Grants Bail To Woman In Baby Sale Case, No Financial Link To Show Commercial Purchase

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of buying a newborn baby girl from her biological mother, holding that the ingredients of "exploitation" under India's anti-trafficking law were not attracted, and that the trial court erred in relying on an unsubstantiated allegation to keep her in custody.

Justice Gajendra Singh, hearing the first bail application of applicant Rubina at the High Court's Indore Bench, was dealing with a private, informal adoption gone wrong. According to the prosecution, a woman referred to as 'H' already had two children and, owing to financial constraints, did not wish to continue a third pregnancy. When a doctor declined to terminate it citing her poor health, 'H' broke down in distress. A woman named Sonu, who introduced herself as an ASHA worker, learned of her difficulty and offered to arrange the child's adoption into a family with "no issues for the last twenty years."

Acting on that assurance, 'H' continued the pregnancy and delivered a baby girl on March 31, 2026. The hospital expenses were allegedly borne by Sonu and another woman. Sonu and her husband then took custody of the infant, promising a video call at handover so 'H' could satisfy herself the baby was going to a good home. 'H' was also made to sign a blank stamp paper for adoption formalities.

When no call came for two to three days, she grew suspicious and demanded her child back, only to be told the baby had already gone to Rubina and her daughter. Alleging her newborn had been sold for money, 'H' approached the police, leading to a case under Sections 143(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 370 and 34 of IPC) , and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Rubina has been in custody since April 5, 2026.

The trial court had earlier rejected her bail plea, relying heavily on 'H's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 (Section 164 of CrPC), alleging Rubina was a "prostitute" who had demanded procurement of the child, and held this sufficient to attract the trafficking offence.

Before the High Court, advocate Chinmay Kalgonkar, for Rubina, argued there was no financial link showing a commercial purchase, and that delivery expenses were borne by the family arranging the adoption, consistent with an intention to adopt rather than buy. The child, he said, was recovered within ten days and restored to her mother, and the role of removing her from hospital and procuring 'H's signature on the stamp paper lay exclusively with co-accused Sonu and one Bhima Pawar, with Rubina being, at best, a recipient through an intermediary, not shown to be part of any organised conspiracy. Advocate Sunit Kapoor for the State, and advocate Manish Gadkar for objector 'H', opposed bail.

Examining the record, the Court noted the investigation had, on the contrary, collected material showing Rubina's daughter had no children for twenty years and the baby was arranged specifically for her. It held that "the essential ingredients of the expression 'exploitation', as defined in Explanation 1 appended to Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 370 of IPC), are not attracted to the facts of the present case." It further observed that even where Section 81 of the JJ Act applies, punishment extends only to five years, so its stricter proviso would not apply here.

The Court was also pointed about how the case had been framed, recording the submission that 'H', having failed to terminate the pregnancy and then been unwilling to raise the child, could not blame those who "ensured that the new born child could survive." It noted the adoption's manner may not have conformed to procedure, but the violation could not be attributed to Rubina alone.

Without commenting on the merits, the Court allowed the application, directing Rubina's release on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023 (Section 437 of CrPC).

Case Title: Smt. Rubina v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: July 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh