Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, 328, 376, 120-B r/w. s.34 – Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – s.3 and s.4 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(1)(w), s.3(2)(va) and s.15A(3) – The prosecution case as against respondent no.2 was that she while being posted as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih 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 – The FIR in the instant case came to be based on the intervention of the High Court – The application for bail filed by respondent no.2 came to be rejected by the Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act) – However, in an appeal before the High Court, the appellant-victim was not impleaded as a party, and bail was granted to the accused (respondent no.2) – Correctness:
Held: The impugned order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of non-compliance of s.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 – This Court is 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 18.01.2024 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 – 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 – In the instant case, 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 – The 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 – Consequently, it is a fit case, warranting exercise of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.136 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere in the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 which is hereby quashed and set aside – The bail granted to respondent no.2-accused is hereby cancelled. [Paras 25, 27, 28, 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.