IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – Bail once granted should not be cancelled ordinarily, but Courts are not powerless and are expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law to cancel undeserving bail orders so as to subserve ends of justice.

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[Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.] whereby, the appeal preferred by respondent No.2-accused²[Hereinafter referred to as the “respondent No.2”] under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989³[Hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”] was allowed and she was granted bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 328, 376, 120- B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁴[Hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”] and Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956⁵[Hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”] and Sections 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant-victim herein is the informant in the said FIR.

4. The prosecution case as against respondent No.2 is that she while being posted as the Superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih, Gaighat, Patna 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. Grave allegations are attributed to the respondent-accused that she used to send the ladies housed in the protection home, outside for the purpose of providing sexual favours to influential people. The FIR in the instant case came to be based on the intervention of the High Court which took cognizance of a newspaper report narrating the ordeals faced by the females kept in the protection home. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court.

5. It may be noted that during the course of investigation, few more ladies in addition to the appellant herein made allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against respondent No.2.

6. The application for bail filed by respondent No.2 came to be rejected by the learned Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Patna⁶[Hereinafter referred to as the “Special Court”] vide order dated 10th July, 2023. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, assailing the order passed by the Special Court.

7. In the meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against respondent No.2 in the Special Court which took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 328, 376, 120B, 504, 506 of the IPC, Sections 3/4 of the IT Act and Section 3(1)(w)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act vide order dated 29th August, 2023.

8. It may be noted that in the appeal before the High Court, the appellant-victim was not impleaded as a party, and bail was granted to the accused (respondent No.2) in clear violation of the mandate under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act which makes hearing of the victim in any prayer for bail essential. The High Court, vide order dated 18th January, 2024, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2 and granted her bail with the following reasoning: -

“7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is no specific allegation against the appellant, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 is hereby set aside.”

9. The appellant-victim is before us through this appeal by special leave to assail the order passed by the High Court.

10. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-victim, learned counsel representing respondent No.2-accused and the learned standing counsel representing the State of Bihar.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-victim vehemently and fervently contended that the High Court granted bail to respondent No.2 by a cryptic order without assigning any reasons whatsoever and totally ignoring the critical fact that respondent No.2 being the Supe