INTRODUCTION
In this case, the Bombay High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail applications filed by the Chairman and the Secretary of the School in Badlapur, wherein, two minor girls, studying in Kindergarten were sexually assaulted by a sweeper. The Single Judge bench, comprising of Justice Rajesh Laddha, had noted that POCSO Act was enacted for the protection and for safeguarding children from sexual crimes, and thus, had opined that the interests of children must prioritised over the interests of the perpetrators.
BACKGROUND
In this case, two members of the school management, under investigation had approached the High Court, after a Special Court designated under the POCSO Act in Kalyan rejected their pre-arrest bail plea. The Bombay High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of the absconding Chairperson and the Secretary of a Badlapur School wherein two minor students were alleged to be sexually abused. The Chairperson and the Secretary were booked for failing to report the alleged sexual abuse to the Police, as per provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
KEY ASPECTS
It was noted by the bench that, the allegation made against was on grounds that, despite being responsible for managing the operations of the school, the incident was not reported to the Special Juvenile Police Unit, or the local police station, despite being aware of the same, that took place on August 12 and 13 of 2024. The Bench however refused to accept the argument of the applicants that they learnt about the incident only after August 16.
While the Applicants claimed that they were innocent and that the victims attended school on August 14 and participated in the Independence Day celebration on August 15 accompanied by parents, and during the same period, no complaints or grievances about the August 13 incident were reported, showing no signs of distress, the Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, argued that the offence in question was serious and that applicants were responsible for the school’s management and had an obligation to report the incident after their guardians approached the school’s principal.
Besides this, the following points were also made by the Single Judge Bench:
- It had been stated by the Bench that, “Considering that the victims are minors, the trauma they have endeared will have a profound impact on their adolescent years, leaving long lasting and irreparable psychological scars. The applicants hold important positions in the school where the unfortunate incident took place, thus there are chances that they may tamper the evidence and pressurise the witnesses, who are employees of the school,”, thus rejecting the bail pleas.
- Furthermore, it was also stated by the Single Bench that, “There is prima facie material indicating that the guardians of the victims voiced their concerns to the teacher, principal etc on day of incident. There is material to show that they were aware of the same even before August 16. Despite having knowledge they did not report the incident.” To this, it was also further stated that, the delay in filing the FIR is due to the applicants negligence for reasons known only to them.”
- It was also pointed out by the Bench that, “Considering that victims are minors, the trauma they endure can profoundly affect their adolescent years, leaving them with lasting and irreparable psychological scars. At this critical stage, there is significant risk that in this case applicants may exert pressure on witnesses and tamper with evidence. In light of these circumstances, the PP rightly argued that this case is not appropriate for granting anticipatory bail”.
- The Court also considered the point where while hearing another Suo-moto PIL, the bench consisting of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan of the Bombay High Court had enquired as to why the two school trustees, who are absconding, could not be taken into custody till the present date. It was stated by Justice Chavan that, “The Mumbai Police goes to any extent and to different states and nabs accused persons. How could two persons are not be nabbed by you (state) so far. You waited for the anticipatory bail granted to them?”.
CONCLUSION
Though the hearing of the PIL has been adjourned in the suo moto PIL, till October 23, 2024, a Committee is stated to be set by Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, who would be discussing on the guidelines to protect children in educational institutions from such sexual offences. Therefore, after looking into the relevant Supreme Court Judgments, it was noted by the Court that, the legislature has imposed an obligation on individuals who are either suspect or aware of offences under the POCSO Act to report the incident to Special Juvenile Police or local police and such a duty cannot be overlooked.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Thanuja Anthiyur Aravindan
