NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has set aside the order of bail to a woman superintendent of a protection home, accused of administering intoxicating substances to female inmates for their sexual exploitation, saying it is clearly a case of saviour turning into a devil.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, the allegations attributed to the accused shake the conscience of the court.
The court said, 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 court felt.
The court allowed an appeal by the victim, belonging to SC/ST community, and set aside the Patna High Court's order of January 18, 2024, which ordered release of Vandana Gupta, the then superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna.
The bench said, "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 woman officer was accused of sending the ladies housed in the protection home, outside for the purpose of providing sexual favours to influential people.
Her counsel said she was granted bail almost 500 days of judicial custody for being a woman and any detailed discussion on merits may prejudice the trial.
The victim's counsel said the bail was granted to the officer even without a mandatory notice to her and after her release, the officer had been reinstated and made in incharge of another protection home, showing the state authorities were hand in glove. The counsel said that the officer might influence witnesses in the case.
Upon hearing the counsel, the court said the respondent-accused being posted as the officer in-charge 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, placed in the said protection home, an institution created to provide them safety and security.
"Not only are the allegations attributed to her are grave and reprehensible in nature, in addition thereto, the fact remained that releasing her on bail is bound to have an adverse effect on trial because there would be an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened," the bench said.
The HC's 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 offences under the SC/ST Act have been applied, the bench said.
The court held the present case is an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the High Court by a cryptic order has resulted into travesty of justice.
The 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 she 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, directing her to surrender within four weeks.
