‘Savior Turned Devil’ In Shelter Home Trafficking Case Loses Bail | Supreme Court Cancels Relief For Violating SC/ST Act And Ignoring Victim’s Right To Be Heard
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the order of bail granted by the High Court to a protection home superintendent accused of orchestrating sexual exploitation of female inmates. The Court allowed the appeal filed by the victim and cancelled the bail of the accused, citing failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the grave nature of the allegations. The Court noted that permitting the accused to continue on bail would adversely affect the fairness of the trial and compromise the safety of the victims.
The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and observed that the High Court's order granting bail was issued in a cryptic and unreasoned manner. It also criticised the conduct of the State Government for reinstating the accused to a similar position despite ongoing prosecution.
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an order dated 18 January 2024 passed by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had granted bail to the respondent-accused, then serving as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna. The accused faced charges in Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022, involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
The complaint was lodged following media reports detailing severe mistreatment and exploitation of female inmates at the shelter home. The High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the newspaper article that exposed the ordeal of the victims and directed a thorough investigation. The subsequent inquiry, supervised by the High Court, led to the registration of the FIR and uncovering of a systemic pattern of abuse.
As per the prosecution's version, the accused, while serving as the superintendent, administered intoxicating substances through medicines and injections to the female inmates, including the appellant-victim. These inmates were allegedly subjected to mental and physical abuse and were sent outside the protection home to provide sexual favours to influential individuals. Multiple women confirmed the allegations in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Patna, rejected the accused’s application for bail via an order dated 10 July 2023. The accused subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court allowed the appeal without issuing notice to the appellant-victim and granted bail, stating merely that there was "no specific allegation against the appellant."
The chargesheet was filed against the accused, and cognizance was taken by the Special Court on 29 August 2023 for offences under IPC Sections 341, 342, 323, 328, 376, 120B, 504, and 506; Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act; and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Following the High Court's bail order, the accused was reinstated to government service and given charge of another women’s protection home in Bihar. The appellant-victim approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the bail on grounds including procedural impropriety, failure to comply with Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act (victim’s right to be heard), and the risk of witness tampering and influence over the trial process due to the accused's reinstatement.
The State of Bihar supported the appellant's plea in the Supreme Court and admitted its inability to explain the decision of reinstating the accused to a similar post.
The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the authorities. The Court recorded: "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."
The Bench further stated: "It is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil." Stating the societal implications, the Court held that granting bail to such an accused could compromise public faith in the justice system.
The Court found fault with the High Court's decision-making process: "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."
Additionally, the Bench noted that the High Court had failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act by not giving the victim an opportunity to be heard: "The impugned order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of non-compliance 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."
The Court cited previous judgments including Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ajwar v. Waseem, reiterating that "a superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace."
The Court observed: "An unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court... Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society."
It concluded that the impugned order was not only defective for failing to comply with mandatory provisions but also grossly inadequate in reasoning. The conduct of reinstating the accused further aggravated the Court’s concerns.
The Court quashed the High Court’s bail order dated 18 January 2024 and cancelled the bail granted to the accused. It held: "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."
The Bench further directed: "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."
Recognising the need to protect victims, the Court mandated: "The trial Court and the District administration shall ensure that proper protection and support is provided to the victims of the case."
The judgment also clarified that: "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."
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
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.
Case Title: Victim 'X' v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 877
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4335 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
