Supreme Court: While considering this appeal filed by the victim challenging the grant of bail to Respondent 2, who during her tenure as Superintendent of Uttar Raksha Grih, was accused of sex trafficking helpless women who resided in that protection home; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., lamented that the present case was clearly of one where the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil. Observing that allegations against Respondent 2 had shaken the Court’ conscience. “Grant of bail to the person accused of such grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society”. Therefore, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court cancelled the bail granted to Respondent 2.
Background:
The prosecution alleged that during the time of her posting as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna, Respondent 2 indulged in administering intoxicating medicines and injections to the victim and other female inmates of the protection home, who were later on subjected to sexual exploitation and mental torture. Grave allegations were attributed to Respondent 2 that she used to send the ladies housed in the protection home, outside for purpose of providing sexual favours to influential people.
FIR in the matter was initiated at the instance of the High Court, after cognizance in the matter was taken when a newspaper report was published narrating the ordeals faced by the females kept in the protection home. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court.
Respondent 2 filed a bail application however it was rejected by the Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act). Thereafter, Respondent 2 preferred an appeal before Patna High Court. In the meanwhile, chargesheet was filed against Respondent 2 before the Special Court, which took cognizance of the case under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
The prosecution stated that in Respondent 2’s appeal before the High Court, the victim was not impleaded as a party and bail was granted to Respondent 2 in clear violation of the mandate under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which makes hearing of the victim in any prayer for bail essential. The High Court via its impugned order, granted bail to Respondent 2 which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Counsels for the victim contended that Respondent 2 being the Superintendent of the women protection home was a person in authority, who misused her position to exploit the helpless female inmates of the institution and deliberately orchestrated their sexual exploitation by various influential persons. It was contended that unidentified men were allowed access into the protection home where they would take advantage of the helpless condition of the victims.
Standing Counsel for State of Bihar submitted that after thorough investigation, grave allegations of misuse of official position to exploit the helpless and destitute female inmates housed in the protection home had been substantiated. Respondent 2 being a person in authority shall influence the fair trial of the case and there will be imminent threat to the life and limb of the victims.
Per contra, counsel for Respondent 2 argued that the High Court, while considering the bail application had taken note of the material available on record and rightly found that there were no specific allegations against Respondent 2. furthermore, Respondent 2 languished in in custody for almost 500 days which became a vital factor to grant her bail. Respondent 2’s counsel contended that being a woman, she is entitled to a special consideration for grant of bail.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the case and submissions of the parties, the Court said that the allegations levelled against Respondent 2 shook the Court’s conscience. Respondent 2 being as the Officer in-charge of the women’s protection home was required to work as a protector of the inmates, but she turned rogue and indulged in sexual exploitation of the helpless and destitute women who had been placed in the said protection home which is an institution created to provide them safety and security.
The Court noted that the allegations attributed to Respondent 2 are grave and reprehensible in nature. Furthermore, releasing Respondent 2 on bail is bound to have an adverse effect on trial because there would be an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened.
The Court stated that though bail once granted should not be cancelled ordinarily, but where the facts are so grave that they shake the conscience of the Court; and where the release of the accused on bail would have an adverse impact on the society, the Courts are expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law to cancel such bail orders so as to subserve the ends of justice. “The present one is precisely a case of such nature”.
The Court pointed out that High Court’s order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of noncompliance of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which mandates that notice to a victim is essential before a prayer for bail is being considered, in a case where the offence/s under the SC/ST Act have been applied. Furthermore, the victim was not impleaded as a party respondent therein and hence, did not have the benefit of right of hearing as warranted by Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court opined that the present case was an exceptional one wherein grant of bail to Respondent 2 by Patna High Court’s cryptic order resulted in travesty of justice. The Court pointed out that post grant of bail, Respondent 2 was reinstated to the position of Superintendent of another protection home which speaks volumes about her clout and influence with the administration.
Therefore, the Court cancelled the bail granted to Respondent 2 and directed her to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks failing which, the Trial Court shall cancel her bail bonds and ensure that she is taken into custody for the remainder of trial. The Trial Court and the District administration shall ensure that proper protection and support is provided to the victims of the case.
[X v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1490, decided on 21-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Raunak Parekh, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jagadish Kumar Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
