The case in question is of traumatizing nature as the Supreme Court of India recently declared a case that was put forward by Victim X against an order of the High Court of Patna. Bail application was granted to Respondent No. 2 by the High Court who was a Superintendent of Uttar Raksha Grih, a home to protect women, in Gaighat Gaighat, Patna. Some of the crimes in which the original dispute against Respondent No. 2 was held concerned violations against different provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offenses against the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (IT Act), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The prosecution claimed that when they were in their position of authority, Respondent No. 2 used to administer intoxicating medicines and injections on the appellant-victim and other female prisoners. These desperate women would normally fall into sexual exploitation and psychological torture. In addition, it is being alleged that Respondent No. 2 used these women to go out of the protection home to give sexual favors to powerful men. The case emerged when a newspaper report was noticed by a High Court, which was the cognizance into the case being taken regarding the horrific experience of the women in the home, and this was actually being monitored on behalf of the High Court itself. Other women who worked as nurses also came out during investigation with claims of torture and sexual exploitation by Respondent No. 2.
The Special Court of SC/ST Act crimes in Patna denied the bail of Respondent No. 2 in the first request on July 10, 2023. The decision was however vacated by the High Court, which granted her bail following an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC /ST Act on January 18, 2024.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
An Imperfect Bail Order
Another highlight which was contradicting in the Supreme Court appeal was that the bail proceedings in the High Court did not include the victim as a party. It is a direct contravention of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which prescribes that victim must be heard when the prayer to grant bail is being entertained in the cases where an offence under the SC/ST Act is alleged. The very short order of the High Court granting bail was also devoid of specific reasons with the only explanation being that, there was no definite charge against the appellant. Such laconic order, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, was a serious oversight taking into consideration the seriousness of the accusations.
Serious Accusations and Abuse of Power
The counsel of the appellant-victim during their hearing before the Supreme Court made a strong case before the court by indicating that the order made by the High Court bore a semblance of mystery and lacked proper regard fueled by the fact that the Respondent No. 2, being the Superintendent, occupied a higher position and he misused that privilege to exploit the helpless female inmates. Many ladies had already recorded statements under the 164 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 that they were beaten to give sexual pleasures to people outside and those that would not cooperate were injected with intoxicants and then they were raped.
To add to this outrageousness, it was found that the Respondent No. 2 was recalled and made to be the head of another protection home in Bihar after being given a bail. The counsel of the appellant considered this action of the state authorities as very alarming because it would expose other vulnerable inmates to similar risks of sexual exploitation. It was also argued that keeping Respondent No. 2 on bail would amount to an imminent danger that she would intimidate or interfere with the witnesses in order to get a fair trial. Witnesses in the case were already receiving threats, and therefore this was a possible source of highly interference. The State of Bihar shall be a responder in the case through standing counsel and echoed the submissions made by the appellant because of the seriousness of the allegation and the possibility that Respondent No. 2 can affect the trial and intimidate the victims. The State counsel failed, however, to give an explanation as to how Respondent No. 2 was reinstated into a similar post despite the case against him still being in trial.
The Impressive stance of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was disturbed further and said that allegations against Respondent No. 2 left a nauseating effect on the conscience of the Court. The Court stressed that Respondent No. 2 should have been a protector of the inmates as the officer in charge of a women protection home but he turned rogue and engaged in sexual exploitation. The Court in categorical terms mentioned that this was an instance where a saviour has been converted to a devil.
In parallels to earlier judgments, the Supreme Court decided to use as an example the case of the groundnut soy, within which, the National Agricultural Marketing Federation of Nigeria was able to transform its condition as a result of the judgment, and therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that this past judgment can act to transform another case with the same events.
Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another.
Ajwar v. Waseem re-cited the principles of a cancellation of bail. Although, in practice, bail after issuance, can not be vetoed automatically, a caprice or irrational bail grant is open to interruption by the higher court. The Court insists that in case there are grave suspicions, or the lower courts have ignored vital evidence or it would affect the society in a negative way, then the bail may be cancelled.
The Court also emphasized that the quashing of the said order will have been possible only on the basis that it involves non-compliance with the Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which requires the issuance of notice to the victim before any bail application can be looked into.
The quashing of the Bail Order
The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling held that Respondent No. 2 was granted the benefit of bail in an order that was cryptic and which must have been a travesty of justice by the High Court. The Court said that admitting bails in such serious crimes without any rationale justification is something that shakes the conscience of Court and will have negative effect to the society. More importantly, the Court also observed that the bail of the accused would negatively affect the trial because there would be high possibility that the material witnesses would be threatened and influenced. The fact that the Respondent No. 2 was restored to the position of authority in yet another protection home further locked the judgment of the Court concerning her clout and influence on the administration.
The Supreme Court thus passed its own extraordinary powers of Article 136 of the Constitution of India and quashed, set aside the order of order dated January 18, 2024 made by the High Court and cancelled the bail of Respondent No. 2. Court ordered Respondent No. 2 to give her surrender before trial court within four weeks time or her bail bonds should be canceled and she taken in custody. There was also provision that trial court and the district administration take proper care and protection of the victims. The case is a good reminder of the role played by the judiciary in upholding justice especially when applied in the cases that involve the exploitation of the vulnerable by those in authority.
Author
About the Author
