AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the order declining bail passed by the learned Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, in Crl.M.P.No.386 of 2026 in Crime No.28 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, as per the case of the prosecution, on 24.07.2026, at around 10:45 a.m., after the class ended, the petitioner called the victim student and questioned her as to whether she needed any clarification relating to dating and living together. Further, he made certain inappropriate comments against the victim child, that only prostitutes and loose women would wear jewellery on their upper ear. Therefore, the case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) of B.N.S., 2023, and under Sections 9(f) and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST(PoA) Act, 1989.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a teacher. Even as per the allegations, the appellant has committed only verbal abuse and there was no physical contact with the victim. Nothing is indicated in the complaint to show that the alleged abuse was made within public view or with the intention to humiliate the victim due to her caste. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.08.2026. He has been in incarceration for about 45 days since then. The substantial portion of the investigation would have been completed by this time. The Trial Court has not assigned any reasons as to why his continued incarceration is necessary. The Pre-trial detention cannot be converted into punishment. The seriousness of the allegations is a relevant consideration. However, It cannot be the sole basis for refusing bail. It is a well established principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The impugned order was passed without applying the fundamental right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the order of the Trial Court declining bail to the appellant is not sustainable.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) contended that, on 24.07.2026 at around 10:45 a.m., after the class was over, the petitioner called the victim to his side, questioned her about whether she had any doubts relating to dating and living together, and asked sexually explicit questions, inquiring whether she had any hormonal issues or was weak. Upon noticing that she had worn a stud on her upper ear, he commented upon her by saying that only prostitutes and loose women would wear such jewellery. Further, he abused her in filthy language with reference to her caste. Therefore, the respondent police has registered a case based on the complaint given by the victim. When the investigation proceeded, the Head Master of the said school called the student and obtained statements in favour of the appellant. According to the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), the said course of action adopted by the Head Master is nothing but interference with the investigation done by the Police. Since, the school is conducting a parallel investigation, the students are not cooperating with the investigation conducted by the Police. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), if the appellant is released on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses and his very presence would demoralise the victim and other students from speaking the truth. Therefore, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the appellant.
Since, this case involves offences under the provisions of SC/ST(PoA)Act, notice was issued to the victim. However, none appeared to object to the grant of bail to the appellant.
This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions put forth by either side.
On careful perusal of records, it is found that it is the case of the prosecution that, on 24.07.2026, at around 10:45 a.m., after the class was over, the appellant herein called the victim to his side and questioned her in an inappropriate manner. Further, he said to have indulged in putting sexually explicit questions and commented upon her with reference to her wearing of a stud on her upper ear and her caste. Therefore, based on the complaint given by the victim, the present case came to be registered. As submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/appellant, it is found that it is only a case of verbal abuse, there is no physical contact. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.08.2026 and is in incarceration for about 45 days. Substantial portion course of investigation would have been completed by this time. Even as per the complaint the alleged abuse was made when she was all alone and, therefore, the said occurrence did not happen within public view. The Statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has already been recorded. That is one of the changing circumstances after declining of bail by the Trial Court.
Considering the above all circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant herein is entitled to bail, however, with the stringent conditions.
In the result, the order of the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
The petitioner/appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni.
The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
The appellant shall stay at Chennai and report before the C1-Flower Bazaar Police Station, daily twice at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., until further orders.
The appellant shall not contact either the victim or the other students of the school during investigation or trial and shall file an affidavit to that effect before the Trial Court.
The appellant shall not enter the occurrence school without prior permission of the Trial Court until further orders.
On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellant, either the respondent Police or the victim is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail before the Trial Court as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala.