In a case that tested the boundaries of law and societal norms, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a same-sex couple accused of kidnapping and trafficking a five-year-old girl. The court acknowledged the couple’s actions as a misguided attempt to fulfill their desire for parenthood, rejecting allegations of trafficking due to insufficient evidence.
Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, observed that while the couple’s conduct aligned with kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code—a bailable offense—it fell short of the exploitation necessary to constitute trafficking under Section 370.
The court noted that a witness’s testimony supported the couple’s claim of being in a long-term same-sex relationship. According to the statement, the couple had been together for a decade and had even performed a ceremonial marriage in a temple. Their longing to have a child, the judge said, was an understandable, albeit unlawful, motive.
“Given the current legal landscape, the couple could neither conceive biologically nor adopt a minor child. This unfortunate reality may have driven them to take an illegal route to parenthood,” Justice Pitale remarked.
The Disappearance
The incident unfolded in March 2024, when the child vanished from her family’s home in Ghatkopar, Mumbai. Her parents reported her missing on March 18, triggering an investigation that led police to the couple’s residence four days later. The girl was found safe but had been handed over to the couple for a mere ₹9,000, allegedly facilitated by accomplices.
While the couple faced charges of kidnapping and trafficking, their defense argued that the act stemmed from a deep-seated desire to become parents rather than any intent to harm or exploit the child.
Legal Hurdles
The prosecution contended that the financial transaction and inducement involved in the case constituted trafficking. However, the court found no evidence of exploitation—a core component of trafficking charges.
“Although there is strong evidence that the couple received the child from co-accused individuals, no material suggests the child was exploited in any way,” Justice Pitale clarified.
The court also took into account the couple’s vulnerability as members of the LGBTQ+ community. Highlighting the stigma they endured in society and during their time in custody, Justice Pitale remarked on the unique hardships faced by the applicants.
After spending eight months in jail, the couple was granted bail on the condition of furnishing personal bonds of ₹25,000 each, along with sureties of the same amount.
This ruling underscores the complexity of addressing unconventional cases within traditional legal frameworks, particularly when they intersect with evolving social attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community.
