21 July 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a stern judgment, the Supreme Court of India has revoked the bail granted to a Superintendent of a women's protection home, who stands accused of orchestrating the sexual exploitation and mental torture of female inmates. The case, arising from an appeal by the victim, highlighted grave concerns about the misuse of authority, the sanctity of protection homes, and the proper application of bail provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellant-victim had approached the Supreme Court challenging an order dated January 18, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had granted bail to the accused (respondent No.2) in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022. The charges against the Superintendent included offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (IT Act), and the SC/ST Act.

Allegations of Grave Misconduct:

The prosecution's case outlined shocking allegations against the Superintendent. It was contended that she administered intoxicating medicines and injections to inmates, facilitating their sexual exploitation and mental torture. There were severe accusations that she would send female residents of the protection home outside to provide sexual favors to influential individuals. The First Information Report (FIR) in this matter was lodged following the High Court's intervention, which took cognizance of a newspaper report detailing the horrific experiences of the women in the home. Several other inmates later corroborated these allegations during the investigation.

The Special Court (SC/ST Act), Patna, had initially denied bail to the accused on July 10, 2023. However, the High Court subsequently allowed her appeal, granting bail with a brief reasoning that "there is no specific allegation against the appellant."

Supreme Court's Scrutiny and Decision:

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court's decision. A critical aspect highlighted by the Apex Court was the clear violation of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates that a victim must be heard before a bail prayer is considered in cases involving offences under the said Act. The appellant-victim had not been impleaded as a party in the High Court proceedings, thus denying her the fundamental right to be heard.

The Court emphasized the gravity of the accusations, noting that the accused, as the Superintendent, was a "person in authority" whose role was to protect, but who allegedly "turned rogue" and exploited vulnerable women. The potential for the accused to influence witnesses and obstruct a fair trial was also a significant concern, especially given reports of threats already being made to witnesses.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court took serious note of the fact that the accused had been reinstated in service and put in charge of another protection home within the State of Bihar after being granted bail. The Court viewed this action by the State authorities as alarming, suggesting a disregard for the safety of other inmates and a possible nexus with the accused.

Drawing upon precedents such as Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and Ajwar v. Waseem, the Supreme Court reiterated that while bail should not ordinarily be cancelled, it is imperative to intervene in "exceptional" cases where the facts are so grave that they "shake the conscience of the Court" and where release on bail would negatively impact society.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order granting bail was "cryptic," lacked proper reasoning, and resulted in a "travesty of justice." Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court quashed and set aside the High Court's order dated January 18, 2024.

Consequently, the bail granted to the Superintendent has been cancelled. She has been directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, failing which her bail bonds will be cancelled, and she will be taken into custody for the remainder of the trial. The Supreme Court also mandated that the trial court and the district administration ensure proper protection and support for the victims in the case. The judgment also clarified that the accused is at liberty to renew her prayer for bail before the appropriate forum if there is any change in circumstances.

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989