Supreme Court of India

X vs The State Of Bihar on 21 July, 2025

Author:
Vikram Nath

Bench:
Vikram Nath

2025 INSC 877

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024)

VICTIM ‘X’ ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR
AND ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. 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 Patna1 whereby, the appeal preferred
by respondent No.2-accused2 under Section 14(A)(2)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

NEETU KHAJURIA

Date: 2025.07.21

1 Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.
17:54:20 IST
Reason: 2 Hereinafter referred to as the “respondent No.2”.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19893 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, 19565 and
Sections 3(1)(w)
/
3(2)(va)

of the SC/ST Act. The appellant-victim herein is the
informant in the said FIR.

4. 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

3 Hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the “
IPC
”.
5 Hereinafter referred to as the “
IT Act
”.
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
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.

5. 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.

6. The application for bail filed by respondent
No.2 came to be rejected by the learned Exclusive
Special Court (SC/ST Act), Patna6 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.

7. 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
,
,
,
,
,
120B
,
,
of
the IPC,
Sections 3
/
of the IT Act and
Section
Hereinafter referred to as the “Special Court”.
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act vide order dated
29th August, 2023.

8. 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.”

9. The appellant-victim is before us through this
appeal by special leave to assail the order passed by
the High Court.

10. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant-victim, learned counsel representing
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
respondent No.2-accused and the learned standing
counsel representing the State of Bihar.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-victim
vehemently and fervently contended that the High
Court granted bail to respondent No.2 by a cryptic
order without assigning any reasons whatsoever and
totally ignoring the critical fact that respondent No.2
being the Superintendent of the women protection
home was a person in authority, who misused her
position to exploit the helpless female inmates of the
institution and deliberately orchestrated their
sexual exploitation by various influential persons.
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.

12. It was further contended that unidentified men
were allowed access into the protection home where
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
they would take advantage of the helpless condition
of the victims so as to gain sexual favours.

13. He further pointed out that pursuant to the
release of respondent No.2 on bail, she has been
reinstated in service, and she is heading another
protection home within the State of Bihar. As per
the learned counsel, this approach of the State
authorities in allowing respondent No.2 to continue
functioning as a person in-charge of the protection
home, despite there being allegations of misuse of
power to facilitate sexual exploitation of female
inmates would imminently expose the inmates to a
grave risk of being subjected to sexual exploitation.
He submitted that it is apparent that the concerned
authorities of the State Government are hands in
glove with the accused and have no intention of
punishing respondent No.2 for her recalcitrant
conduct. Rather she has been rewarded with a fresh
tenure in an identical protection home where she
had earlier committed the atrocities on the female
inmates.

14. Learned counsel further submitted that in
case, respondent No.2 is allowed to remain on bail,
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
there is an imminent danger of her influencing the
witnesses and frustrating the trial. He pointed out
that as a matter of fact, numerous threats have
already been given to the witnesses of this case and
hence, the continuance of respondent No.2 on bail
would be detrimental to a fair trial.

15. On these grounds and looking to the gravity
and nature of allegations, learned counsel for the
appellant implored the Court to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 136
of the
Constitution of India so as to cancel the bail granted
to respondent No.2.

16. Learned standing counsel representing
respondent No.1-State of Bihar supported the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant-victim. He contended that after thorough
investigation, grave allegations of misuse of official
position to exploit the helpless and destitute female
inmates housed in the protection home have been
substantiated. Respondent No.2 being a person in
authority shall definitely influence the fair trial of
the case and there is imminent threat to the life and
limb of the victim ladies, if respondent No.2 is
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
allowed to continue on bail during the pendency of
the trial. However, on a pertinent query being posed,
learned 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 women’s home in spite of
the fact that she is facing a prosecution for abuse of
powers and sexual exploitation while working in a
similar institution.

17. Learned counsel representing respondent
No.2-accused strenuously tried to justify the
impugned order. He urged that the High Court,
while considering the bail application has taken
note of the material available on record and rightly
found that there are no specific allegations against
respondent No.2 in the prosecution evidence and
thereafter, a reasoned order has been passed
directing release of respondent No.2 on bail. He
urged that respondent No.2 being a woman had
languished in custody for almost 500 days, since
27th August, 2022 and this was the most vital factor
which weighed with the High Court in favour of
grant of bail. He urged that detailed discussion of
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
evidence at the stage of deciding the bail application
may prejudice the trial and hence, it would not be
fair to say that the High Court has not adverted to
the merits of the case.

18. He urged that respondent No.2 being a woman
is entitled to a special consideration for grant of bail
and as such, this Court should be slow in
interfering with the order passed by the High Court
directing release of respondent No.2 on bail.

19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone
through the impugned order and the material
placed on record.

20. 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
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
home which is an institution created to provide
them safety and security.

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

22. 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.

23. Recently, this Court in the case of
Shabeen
Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.7

while placing reliance upon the case of
Ajwar v.
Waseem8
cancelled the bail granted to the accused
in a dowry death case observing as follows:

“18.... 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 of dowry
deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both
within and outside the courtroom, that courts
must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime

7 (2025) 4 SCC 172.

8 (2024) 10 SCC 768.
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.

These observations regarding grant of bail in
grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this
Court in
Ajwar v. Waseem
in the following paras:

“26. While considering as to whether bail
ought to be granted in a matter involving a
serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of
the accusations made against the accused,
the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused,
the probability of tampering of the
witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood
of the accused being unavailable in the
event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading
the courts of justice and the overall
desirability of releasing the accused on
bail. [Refer :
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.
[Chaman Lal
v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC
525];
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan
[(2004) 7 SCC 528];
Masroor v.
State of U.P.
[(2009) 14 SCC 286];

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee

[(2010) 14 SCC 496];
Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P.
[(2014) 16 SCC 508];
Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi
) [(2018) 12
SCC 129];
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar

[(2020) 2 SCC 118].

27. It is equally well settled that bail
once granted, ought not to be cancelled
in a mechanical manner. However, an
unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the
superior court. If there are serious
allegations against the accused, even if he
has not misused the bail granted to him,
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
such an order can be cancelled by the
same Court that has granted the bail. 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
resulting in such an order.
In
P v. State of
M.P.
[(2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored
by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out
the considerations that must weigh with
the Court for interfering in an order
granting bail to an accused under
Section
439(1)
CrPC in the following words : (SCC
p. 224, para 24)

“24.

As can be discerned from the
above decisions, for cancelling bail
once granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the
conduct of the accused post grant of
bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him
to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial [
Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana
, (1995) 1
SCC 349] . To put it differently, in
ordinary circumstances, this Court
would be loathe to interfere with an
order passed by the court below
granting bail but if such an order is
found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is
irrelevant, then such an order is
susceptible to scrutiny and
interference by the appellate
court.”

Considerations for setting aside bail
orders
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024

28. The considerations that weigh with the
appellate court for setting aside the bail
order on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred
after granting relief to the accused, the
conduct of the accused while on bail, any
attempt on the part of the accused to
procrastinate, resulting in delaying the
trial, any instance of threats being
extended to the witnesses while on bail,
any attempt on the part of the accused to
tamper with the evidence in any manner.

We may add that this list is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. However,
the court must be cautious that at the
stage of granting bail, only a prima facie
case needs to be examined and detailed
reasons relating to the merits of the case
that may cause prejudice to the accused,
ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state
that the bail order should reveal the
factors that have been considered by
the Court for granting relief to the
accused.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

24. 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
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
orders so as to subserve the ends of justice. The
present one is precisely a case of such nature.

25. We may note that 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, in a case
where the offence/s under the SC/ST Act have been
applied.

26. 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.

27. 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
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
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.

28. 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.

29. 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
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024
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.

30. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

31. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;

JULY 21, 2025.
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 4335 of 2024