'Savior Turned Devil': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Woman In-Charge Of Bihar Shelter Home Accused Of Trafficking Inmates

The Supreme Court today cancelled the bail granted to woman in-charge of a Bihar shelter home, accused of trafficking the shelter home residents and facilitating immoral activities.

"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", a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the complainant/informant seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2-accused by the Patna High Court. At the relevant time, the accused was Superintendent in-charge of Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna.

Directing the woman-accused's surrender within 4 weeks, the Court observed that her release on bail would adversely impact the trial as there would be high chances of the material witnesses being threatened and influenced.

In this regard, it was also noted that that the accused had been reinstated to the position of Superintendent of another protection home. The same, in the Court's opinion, spoke "volumes about her clout and influence with the administration".

Besides the above, the trial court and the district administration were directed to ensure protection and support for the victims in the case. At the same time, the accused was given liberty to renew her prayer for bail in case there is a change in circumstances.

Noting that the allegations against the accused were grave, reprehensible and shook the Court's conscience, the bench said,

"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."

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

Another ground on which cancellation of bail was merited as per the Court was that the High Court did not hear the appellant-victim before granting bail to the accused.

"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...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."

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where it was observed that a bail order should reveal reasons which prevailed with the Court while directing release on bail. Notably, the decision in the said case was also delivered by a bench of Justices Nath and Mehta, cancelling the bail of a father-in-law and a mother-in-law in a case of alleged dowry death of their daughter-in-law. It was noted that there was prima facie evidence regarding dowry demand and domestic violence.

To briefly state facts of the present case, the petitioner, a victim of sexual abuse, came to the Gaighat shelter home in 2017. In 2018, the accused became in-charge of the shelter home and thereafter "atrocities against the girls began". The girls retaliated, but they were then administered drugs to involve them in the work of prostitution.

"The girls were sent to different men or the men were allowed to enter the Remand Home to perform illegal activities with the innocent girls", the petition stated.

Upon intervention of the High Court, which took suo motu cognizance of the shelter home's activities based on a newspaper report, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner in 2022 at Mahila Police Station, Patna under Sections 341/323/328/376/120B/34 IPC and 3/4 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. The Special Court rejected the accused's bail plea in 2023. However, vide the impugned order, the High Court granted her bail "on frivolous grounds". Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.

Appearance: AoR Dr Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocates Raunak Parekh, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, Jitesh Sharma and Jagadish Kumar Jha (for petitioner); AoRs Samir Ali Khan and Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Advocates Pranjal Sharma and Kashif Irshad Khan (for respondents)

Case Title: X Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 4335/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Click here to read the judgment