The Sindh High Court has granted bail to a woman in a child trafficking case. The applicant, Dr Lubna Siddiqui, was booked by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under the Prevention of Trafficking of Persons Act.
According to the prosecution, the applicant and other co-accused had organised a network for child trafficking. The FIA alleged that a woman, Kiran Sohail, was offloaded with a minor child on June 9, 2025 while attempting to travel to Mozambique and during screening and questioning, inconsistencies were found in the travel history and it was found that the infant was handed over to Kiran by a woman, Yasmeen Mawani, at the airport.
Digital scrutiny revealed communication among persons including Sohail Ali in Mozambique, Suel, caretaker Lakshmi and Yasmeen. The FIA inquiry alleged that a network comprising Kiran, Sohail, Hameeda, alias Major Maan, Yasmeen, Dr Mumtaz Nayani and the applicant Dr Lubna had arranged the custody and forged identity/passport documents for the infant to facilitate his travel and handover abroad in consideration of money.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant, being a government medical officer and CEO of NGO “Nayab Welfare Human Health Care & Orphanage Association”, handed over the child unlawfully without adopting the statutory procedure and allegedly received Rs350,000 through Yasmeen. Of the amount, the applicant allegedly retained Rs100,000 and passed Rs250,000 to Kiran.
A counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no direct or independent corroborative evidence showing receipt of any monetary consideration by the applicant as no documentary trail, banking record or recovery was produced.
He submitted that the principal material relied upon by the prosecution was the disclosure/statement of co-accused Kiran recorded before the FIA, which was inadmissible under the Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in the absence of a judicial confession under the Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
He submitted that the applicant was a registered medical practitioner serving as a woman medical officer (BPS-17) and had established a duly registered NGO engaged in lawful placement of orphans with deserving couples after observance of codal formalities, for which certificates and renewals were on record.
The counsel submitted that the prosecution case suffered from material inconsistencies, most notably, co-accused Kiran’s own bail memo stated that she adopted the baby from the Edhi cradle six to seven months earlier, which contradicted the FIR allegation of a handover at the airport on the date of travel.
He also contended that the co-accused who had been assigned stronger roles had already been granted bail by the court on October 3, 2025 thus, the rule of consistency should be applied and bail granted to the applicant.
The deputy attorney general opposed the application and submitted that the offences were grave, involved an organised group, and pertained to a minor child, attracting the Section 4 of PTPA 2018 which prescribed punishment up to 14 years where aggravating circumstances existed.
He argued that digital extractions and WhatsApp chats allegedly connected the accused persons, and caretaker Lakshmi’s statement purportedly implicated the network. He submitted that the applicant played a central role in handing over the infant outside the legal process and receiving consideration, thereby disentitling her to the benefit of the proviso in view of the gravity of accusations.
A single bench of the SHC comprising Justice Jan Ali Junejo after hearing the arguments observed that the co-accused who had been assigned identical or graver roles had been granted bail and the applicant’s case stood on parity or a comparatively better footing.
The high court observed that the cornerstone against the applicant was the disclosure of Kiran and the prosecution’s assertion of a cash transaction of Rs350,000, while no banking trail, receipt, recovery of alleged cash, or contemporaneous documentary proof had been pointed out linking the applicant with the alleged monetary receipt.
The SHC observed that the prosecution also had not shown any certified forensic report establishing authorship, integrity or chain of custody of WhatsApp chats attributable to the applicant.
The high court observed that the case against the applicant fell within the ambit of further inquiry under the Section 497(2) of the CrPC, and granted bail to the applicant against a surety of Rs500,000.
