LexVICTIM ‘X’ versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1330 : 2025 INSC 877 Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3090 of 2025) 21 July 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against the respondent no.2-accused. She was granted bail by the High Court. Whether the grant of bail to the respondent no.2-accused has resulted into travesty of justice. Headnotes† 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 * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1331 Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar and Anr. 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] Case Law Cited Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2025] 3 SCR 367 : (2025) 4 SCC 172; Ajwar v. Waseem [2024] 5 SCR 575 : (2024) 10 SCC 768 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. List of Keywords Torture; Sexual exploitation; Bail; Justice; Cancellation of bail; Perverse order of bail. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3090 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CRLA(SJ) No. 3765 of 2023 1332 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Raunak Parekh, Ms. Minu Kumari, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Piyush Sardana, Amit Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka Dubey. Advs. for the Respondents: Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Khan, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Akshaya Agrawal. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19893 was allowed and she was granted bail in connecti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.