|
The Delhi High Court has set aside the bail granted to a female school teacher accused in a POCSO case involving the alleged sexual assault of a three-year-old nursery student, and directed her to surrender within three days, observing that the trial court overlooked material considerations while granting her liberty.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the impugned bail order suffered from serious infirmities as it ignored the gravity of the allegations, the statutory rigours of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the vulnerability of the child victim. The High Court directed the respondent to surrender before the jurisdictional Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Court) within three days of the judgment, at or before 12 noon. The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the State challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Dwarka Courts, which had granted regular bail to the teacher on May 20, 2026. According to the prosecution, the three-year-old victim returned home from school on April 30, 2026 and later complained of severe pain in her private parts. She allegedly told her mother that a "big boy" at the school had taken her downstairs and inserted his finger into her private parts, causing pain and bleeding. During the investigation, the child allegedly stated that her class teacher had taken her to the basement, removed her clothes, cleaned blood stains and given her sweets. The child subsequently identified the teacher during video-recorded identification proceedings. The prosecution also relied on the recovery of blood-stained tissue paper and a bedsheet from the alleged scene, as well as medical records showing treatment for urinary tract and bladder infections after the incident. The State argued that the trial court had effectively conducted a mini-trial while deciding the bail application by questioning the credibility of the child's statement and entertaining allegations of tutoring without any supporting material. It further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the seriousness of the allegations, the respondent's position as the child's class teacher, and the possibility of her influencing witnesses associated with the school. On the other hand, the teacher argued that she had been falsely implicated, had served at the school for 13 years without any adverse record, and that no fresh injuries supporting the allegations were found during the medical examination. She also contended that her name did not appear in the initial complaint or FIR and surfaced only later in the child's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, which, according to her, indicated an afterthought. She further submitted that she had cooperated with the investigation, no further custodial interrogation was required, and the co-accused had already been granted bail. Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that while considering bail in cases involving sexual offences against children, courts must give due weight to the grave physical, emotional, mental and psychological harm suffered by child victims. It emphasised that the POCSO Act is a special legislation enacted to provide enhanced protection to children and that such cases require utmost care and caution at the stage of considering bail. The High Court noted that the trial court itself had recognised that a three-year-old child could not be expected to disclose every detail at the earliest stage, yet it proceeded to grant bail primarily because the teacher's name was absent from the initial complaint and surfaced later. The High Court held that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and that subsequent statements can legitimately supplement the initial complaint. It was also observed that the child had later identified both the teacher and the location where the alleged incident took place. Justice Banerjee further held that the trial court erred in assessing the credibility of the victim's version at the bail stage, contrary to settled law. The HC also found it significant that bail had been granted merely six days after the teacher's arrest without any compelling reasons being recorded. The High Court additionally observed that the teacher had been associated with the school for 13 years and occupied a position of authority, creating a likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, particularly when the investigation and proceedings were still at a nascent stage. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the State's petition, set aside the bail order, and directed the respondent to surrender before the jurisdictional POCSO Court within three days. It clarified that the observations made in the judgment were confined to deciding the bail cancellation petition and would not influence the trial on the merits. (ANI)
|
