'Saviour turned into devil': SC Cancels Bail of Woman Officer Accused of Exploiting Shelter Home Inmates
The Supreme Court, on July 21, 2025, cancelled the bail granted to a woman Superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna in a case related to rape and wrongful confinement of the victim belonging to SC/ST community.
"It is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, allowing the plea by the victim against the High Court's bail order.
It was alleged that while being posted as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna, the accused, Vandana Gupta, 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.
It was also alleged that she used to send the ladies housed in the protection home outside for the purpose of providing sexual favours to influential people.
Considering the challenge to the High Court's January 18, 2024, order, the bench said, "We may like to note that the allegations attributed to respondent No.2 shake the conscience of the court."
The court noted that the respondent-accused, 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," the bench said.
The court said that not only were the allegations attributed to her "grave and reprehensible in nature", but in addition thereto, the fact remained that releasing her on bail was bound to have an adverse effect on the trial because there would be an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened.
The bench pointed out, 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," the bench held.
Court also said, the impugned order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of non compliance of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which mandated 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.
"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," the bench said.
Referring to Shabeen Ahmad v. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the bench opined that the present case was an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court to respondent No.2-accused by a cryptic order had 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," the bench said.
Court also felt 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," the bench said.
Court thus cancelled her bail and directed her to surrender before the trial court within a period of four weeks.
The bench directed the trial court and the District administration to ensure that proper protection and support is provided to the victims of the case.
The FIR in the matter was lodged in 2022 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.
The victim, in her appeal, contended that the accused misused her position to exploit the helpless female inmates of the institution and deliberately orchestrated their sexual exploitation by various influential persons.
Her counsel claimed numerous women inmates have made grave allegations in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that they were sent out of the institution for providing sexual gratification to outsiders and those who resisted, were injected with intoxicants and under the influence thereof, they were subjected to sexual exploitation by different men.
It was also alleged that unidentified men were allowed access into the protection home where they would take advantage of the helpless condition of the victims so as to gain sexual favours.
After her release on bail, she has been rewarded with a fresh tenure in an identical protection home where she had earlier committed the atrocities on the female inmates, showing the state authorities were hand in glove.
The state counsel supported the victim.
However, the court found that the standing counsel was not in a position to explain the conduct of the State authorities in reinstating respondent No.2-accused and putting her in charge of another woman’s home in spite of the fact that she was facing a prosecution for abuse of powers and sexual exploitation while working in a similar institution.
The counsel for the respondent No.2, submitted that, being a woman, the accused had languished in custody for almost 500 days, since August 27, 2022, and this was the most vital factor which weighed with the High Court in favour of grant of bail. He also urged that detailed discussion of evidence at the stage of deciding the bail application may prejudice the trial.
The bench, however, said it was a fit case, warranting exercise of the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution so as to interfere in the impugned order of January 18, 2024 which was quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Victim 'X' Vs State of Bihar And Anr
Judgment Date: July 21, 2025
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta