We see that while taking the most rational step in the most right direction and in a most scathing rebuke of the unjustified leniency that was demonstrated by the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Victim X vs State of Bihar and Anr. in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 877 that was pronounced as recently as on July 21, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has cancelled the bail that had been granted to a former Superintendent of a Patna based women’s remand home, who is accused of grave charge of enabling the sexual exploitation of female inmates and allowing unauthorized male access into the care facility. We need to note here that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta had directed Gupta to surrender within four weeks. We thus see that the Apex Court set aside the bail order that had been delivered by the Patna High Court dated January 18, 2024 on the premise that it lacked proper reasoning and so also violated statutory safeguards that are in place for the victim under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “This appeal by special leave emanates from the order dated 18th January, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) whereby, the appeal preferred by respondent No.2-accused (Hereinafter referred to as the “respondent No.2”) under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) was allowed and she was granted bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 and Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”) and Sections 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant-victim herein is the informant in the said FIR.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 stating that, “The prosecution case as against respondent No.2 is 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 are attributed to the respondent-accused that she used to send the ladies housed in the protection home, outside for the purpose of providing sexual favours to influential people. The FIR in the instant case came to be 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.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “It may be noted that during the course of investigation, few more ladies in addition to the appellant herein made allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against respondent No.2.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 that, “The application for bail filed by respondent No.2 came to be rejected by the learned Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Patna (Hereinafter referred to as the “Special Court”) vide order dated 10th July, 2023. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, assailing the order passed by the Special Court.”
As things stands, the Bench discloses in para 7 that, “In the meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against respondent No.2 in the Special Court which took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 328, 376, 120B, 504, 506 of the IPC, Sections 3/4 of the IT Act and Section 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act vide order dated 29th August, 2023.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 8 that, “It may be noted that in the appeal before the High Court, the appellant-victim was not impleaded as a party, and bail was granted to the accused (respondent No.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, vide order dated 18th January, 2024, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2 and granted her bail with the following reasoning: –
“7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is no specific allegation against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 is hereby set aside.””
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 9 that, “The appellant-victim is before us through this appeal by special leave to assail the order passed by the High Court.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 20 that, “At the outset, 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.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 21 that, “Thus, it is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 22 that, “Not only are the allegations attributed to respondent No. 2-accused are grave and reprehensible in nature, in addition thereto, the fact remains that releasing respondent No. 2 on bail is bound to have an adverse effect on trial because there would be an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened.”
It would be also worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 24 that, “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 sub-serve the ends of justice. The present one is precisely a case of such nature.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench points out in para 25 noting that, “We may note that 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 being considered, in a case where the offence/s under the SC/ST Act have been applied.”
Notably, the Bench notes in para 26 that, “On going through the memo of appeal filed by the respondent-accused in the High Court, we find that the appellant-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.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 27 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Furthermore, keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in Shabeen Ahmad (supra), we are of the firm opinion that the present case is an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court to respondent No.2-accused by a cryptic order dated 18th January, 2024 has resulted into travesty of justice. 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. Furthermore, the release of the accused on bail would adversely impact the trial as there would be high chances of the material witnesses being threatened and influenced. Our conclusions are fortified by the fact that respondent No.2-accused has been reinstated to the position of Superintendent of another protection home which speaks volumes about her clout and influence with the administration.”
Most fittingly, the Bench observes in para 28 that, “Consequently, it is a fit case, warranting exercise of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere in the impugned order dated 18th January, 2024 which is hereby quashed and set aside.”
Quite significantly, the Bench directs in para 29 holding succinctly that, “The bail granted to respondent No.2-accused is hereby cancelled. 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. In case there is any change of circumstances, respondent No.2-accused shall be at liberty to renew her prayer of bail before the appropriate forum.”
Further, the Bench then directs in para 30 that, “The appeal is allowed in the above terms.”
Finally, the Bench then very rightly concludes by directing and holding aptly in para 31 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
