The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of an Officer in-charge of a women’s protection home in Patna, accused of administering intoxicating medicines to female inmates and subjecting them to sexual exploitation. The Apex Court also remarked that the person put in the role of a savior had turned into a devil.

The appeal by special leave before the Apex Court emanated from an order passed by the Patna High Court whereby, the appeal preferred by respondent (second accused) under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was allowed and she was granted bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120- B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3,4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as well as Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant-victim herein was the informant in the said FIR.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “...we may like to note that the allegations attributed to respondent No.2 shake the conscience of the Court. Respondent No.2 being posted 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.”

“Thus, it is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil”, it added.

AOR Vinod Kumar Tewari represented the Appellant while AOR Samir Ali Khan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution case as against the accused was that she, while being posted as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna, indulged in administering intoxicating medicines and injections to the appellant-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 the respondent-accused that she used to send the ladies housed in the protection home, outside, to provide sexual favors to influential people.

The FIR came to be registered based on the intervention of the High Court, which took cognizance of a newspaper report narrating the ordeals faced by the females kept in the protection home. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. A Special Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under the aforementioned sections. The High Court granted the accused bail, citing absence of specific allegation against her. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-victim approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained, “It is trite that 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 not powerless and 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.”

As per the Bench, the impugned 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 considered, in a case where the offence/s under the SC/ST Act have been applied.

Referring to the judgment in Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025), the Bench observed that the present case was an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court to the respondent-accused by a cryptic order had resulted in a travesty of justice. The Bench thus found that this was a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Thus, quashing the impugned order and allowing the appeal, the Bench cancelled the bail granted to respondent-accused. “She shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, 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”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Victim ‘x’ v. State of Bihar And Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 877)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Vinod Kumar Tewari, Advocates Raunak Parekh, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, Jitesh Sharma, Jagadish Kumar Jha

Respondent: AOR Samir Ali Khan, Advocates Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, AOR Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep Mehta

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.