The Supreme Court of India has cancelled the bail granted to a woman superintendent of a protection home in Patna, Bihar, who was accused of sexually exploiting female inmates. The court overturned the Patna High Court's order from January 18, 2024, which had granted bail to Vandana Gupta, the former superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta presided over the bench that delivered the order on July 21, 2025. The Supreme Court has directed Vandana Gupta to surrender before the trial court within four weeks.
The case against Gupta involves grave allegations that she administered intoxicating substances to the women inmates of the protection home and then subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture. It was also alleged that she sent these women outside the premises to provide sexual favors to influential people. The FIR in the matter was registered in 2022 based on the Patna High Court's intervention, which had taken cognizance of a newspaper report detailing the ordeals of the women in the protection home. The High Court also monitored the investigation.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized Gupta's actions, stating that she had betrayed her duty as the officer in-charge of the women's protection home, where she was meant to be the protector of the inmates. Instead, she "turned rogue and indulged in sexual exploitation of the helpless and destitute women". The court stated, "It is clearly a case, wherein the person put in the role of a saviour has turned into a devil". The bench added that granting bail to someone accused of such grave offenses without assigning proper reasons "shakes the conscience of the court and would have an adverse impact on the society".
The Supreme Court also addressed the fact that Gupta had been reinstated as superintendent of another protection home after being released on bail. The court found this concerning, stating that it "speaks volumes about her clout and influence with the administration". The court also noted the state counsel was unable to explain why the state authorities had reinstated Gupta despite the serious charges against her. The Supreme Court has directed the trial court and the district administration to ensure that proper protection and support is provided to the victims in this case.
The court emphasized that while bail should not be cancelled ordinarily, there are exceptions where the facts are so grave that they "shake the conscience of the Court". In such cases, where the release of the accused would adversely impact society, courts are expected to exercise their jurisdiction to cancel the bail. The Supreme Court deemed this case to be "an exceptional one" where the High Court's grant of bail had resulted in a "travesty of justice". The Supreme Court observed that releasing Gupta on bail would likely have an adverse effect on the trial, with a significant risk of witnesses being threatened.
