E-Paper
First FIR registered in Bihar shelter home case
The Bakhtiyarpur woman claimed to have lived at the shelter home for four years. She told the police that she was subjected to physical and mental abuse, multiple times, at the behest of Vandana Gupta
A former resident of a shelter home at Patna’s Gaighat has alleged that she was abused at the aftercare home, a police officer said on Wednesday, adding that an FIR has been registered at a women’s police station.
The woman, a resident of Bakhtiarpur, lodged a complaint against the aftercare home’s administration and its superintendent in-charge Vandana Gupta on Tuesday. An NGO, Mahila Vikas Manch (MVM), helped the woman in filing the complaint, police said.
This is the second such instance, where a former inmate has accused the shelter home of maltreatment.
MVM functionary Beena Manavi said that the first complainant, who hails from Uttar Pradesh, had to approach the high court directly after the police and district administration refused to record her statements at the women police station.
“She had to file an intervener petition in the Patna High Court. She might record her statement before the division bench of the court, comprising chief justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S Kumar, on Friday,” said Manavi. The high court (HC) took up the matter for hearing on Monday (February 7). The next hearing in the case is on Friday (February 11) .
Both women are in their late twenties, said an official.
The Bakhtiyarpur woman claimed to have lived at the shelter home for four years. She told the police that she was subjected to physical and mental abuse, multiple times, at the behest of Vandana Gupta. She also supported the first complainant’s version alleging that a few inmates were sexually abused the shelter home.
“A first information report (FIR) was lodged under Sections 354 (A) (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) and 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) among other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the shelter home staff and the in-charge. This is the first FIR against the shelter home. Another woman had come to the police station with a similar complaint, but she did not submit any written statement,” said C Kumari, station house officer, women police station.
In addition to the intervener petition filed by the UP woman, the HC had taken suo moto cognizance of the issue on February 1 and directed the Juvenile Justice Monitoring Committee (JJMC) to file a public interest litigation (PIL) on the basis of different reports, including a media report and the one submitted by the juvenile justice board (JJB) last year. The court in its February 2 hearing also noted that Patna district judge, who had reportedly been sent the JJB report, did not further communicate the matter to the JJMC.
The court had also taken a serious view of the social welfare department’s (SWD) dilly-dallying in the case and pulled up the officials for their reluctance to act swiftly.
An official from SWD on the condition of anonymity said that they were waiting for the high court directives to act as the case had become complicated and the previous report submitted by the SWD director had dismissed the contention of the victim as “false and fabricated.”
“She (the first complainant) aired her grievance six months after leaving the home. Why did she wake up after so long? Many of her claims do not match with the reality,” said a senior SWD officer, pleading anonymity.
Manavi, however, contented that three to four former inmates are in touch with her. “They will record their statements before the police or the court, if they feel action will be taken against the superintendent and other shelter home staff involved in the assault,” she said.
Meanwhile, Patna senior superintendent of police (SSP) MS Dhillon refused to reply to the calls and messages sent to him about the follow up action being taken by the Patna police after lodging of the FIR.
