Summary
The High Court had granted bail, by a cryptic order recording only that there was no specific allegation, to the Superintendent of a women's protection home accused of drugging inmates and sending them out for sexual exploitation, without the victim-informant being impleaded or heard. The Court cancelled the bail, holding that the order could have been quashed solely for non-compliance with Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, and that the gravity of the allegations, the likelihood of witnesses being threatened and the accused's reinstatement as Superintendent of another protection home made it an exceptional case warranting interference under Article 136.
Issues
- Whether bail granted by the High Court through an unreasoned order to a person accused of grave offences of sexual exploitation of protection-home inmates should be cancelled in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- Whether the bail order was vitiated by the failure to implead and hear the victim as mandated by Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Provisions considered
- Section 15A(3), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Hearing of the victim is essential in any prayer for bail where offences under the Act are applied; the victim was not impleaded in the accused's appeal before the High Court, which the Court held was by itself a sufficient ground to quash the bail order. (¶¶ 8, 25, 26)
- Section 14A(2), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The accused's appeal to the High Court against the Special Court's refusal of bail was filed under this provision; the High Court allowed it by the impugned order. (¶¶ 3, 6, 8)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaExtraordinary jurisdiction exercised to quash the High Court's bail order, the case being an exceptional one where an unreasoned grant of bail for grave offences resulted in a travesty of justice. (¶¶ 15, 27, 28)
Held
- Bail once granted should not ordinarily be cancelled, but where the facts are so grave that they shake the conscience of the Court and release of the accused would adversely affect society, courts are not powerless and are expected to cancel such bail to subserve the ends of justice; the factors for cancelling bail stated in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Ajwar v. Waseem were applied. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The impugned order could have been quashed on the solitary ground of non-compliance with Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates notice to the victim before a prayer for bail is considered in a case where offences under that Act are applied; the victim had not been impleaded in the appeal before the High Court and so was denied her right of hearing. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- The accused, as officer in charge of the women's protection home, was required to protect the inmates but is alleged to have exploited them; the allegations are grave and reprehensible, and her release on bail would adversely affect the trial because of the imminent possibility of witnesses being threatened. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Grant of bail to a person accused of such grave offences by a cryptic order without assigning reasons resulted in a travesty of justice; the conclusion was fortified by the accused having been reinstated as Superintendent of another protection home, which showed her clout and influence with the administration. (¶ 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 18.01.2024 quashed; bail granted to respondent No. 2 cancelled; she is to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, failing which the trial court shall cancel her bail bonds and take her into custody; trial court and district administration to ensure protection and support to the victims; liberty to renew the prayer for bail on a change of circumstances.