Supreme Court cancels bail of woman superintendent accused of sexual exploitation

The superintendent was accused of sending women housed in the protection home outside for sexual favours for influential people.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday cancelled the bail granted to a protection home's woman superintendent accused of administering intoxicating substances to women inmates for their sexual exploitation, saying it is clearly a case of saviour turning into the devil.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta 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 court allowed an appeal by a victim, belonging to SC/ST community, and set aside the Patna High Court's January 18, 2024, order to release Vandana Gupta, the then superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Patna's Gaighat.

She was accused of sending women housed in the protection home outside for sexual favours for influential people.  

Her counsel said she was granted almost 500 days of judicial custody and any detailed discussion on merits might prejudice the trial.

The victim's counsel said the bail was granted even without a mandatory notice to her, and that the officer had been reinstated and put in charge of another protection home after her release. She also apprehended that the officer might influence witnesses in the case.

The court then noted the respondent-accused, being posted as an officer in charge, was required to work as a protector of the inmates, but turned rogue and indulged in the sexual exploitation of helpless and destitute women in an institution created to provide them safety and security.

Calling the allegations "grave and reprehensible", it said the fact remained that releasing her on bail was bound to adversely affect on trial because there would be "an imminent possibility of the witnesses being threatened".

The bench also said, bail once granted should not be cancelled ordinarily, but where the facts were so grave and where the release of the accused on bail would adversely impact society, the courts were not powerless and were expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law to cancel such bail orders. "The present one is precisely a case of such nature," it said.

The court held that this case was an exceptional one, wherein the grant of bail by the HC by a cryptic order had resulted in a travesty of justice.  

"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," said the bench, directing her to surrender within four weeks.