“Such conduct of the teacher would certainly create an atmosphere of fear in the minds of people of society and such perpetrator should not go unpunished,” the Court added.
The recent decision by the Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail to a teacher facing accusations of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl with mental disabilities.
Given the gravity of the case, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav declined the applicant’s plea for anticipatory bail. The court expressed, “Teachers play a pivotal role in shaping the future of their students, and such actions by a teacher can instill fear in society. Perpetrators should face appropriate legal consequences to deter such incidents in the future.”
The allegations revolved around the accused, purportedly a teacher, raping a minor from a scheduled caste. According to the initial First Information Report (FIR), the accused assaulted the minor on July 26 of this year. On that fateful day, the complainant and his daughter were tending to their goats in the vicinity. Subsequently, the accused lured the victim into his house while she was alone and proceeded to molest her. The FIR included charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO Act) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in addition to the rape allegations.
The accused contended that he was falsely implicated due to personal rivalries and an ongoing civil case. His defense also raised concerns about the delayed filing of the FIR and the presence of inconsistencies. Furthermore, they argued that the accused had no prior criminal record and lacked substantial evidence connecting him to the alleged crime.
The state government opposed the anticipatory bail petition. The Court took into account the victim’s age (14 years old), her mental disability, and characterized the alleged crime as “heinous.” The court also considered the government attorney’s point that the medical report did not confirm the rape; instead, it emphasized that the determination of rape is a legal matter, not a medical one. The Court also pointed out that the absence of injuries on the victim’s private parts or other body areas did not rule out the possibility of violation.
After careful deliberation on the seriousness of the charges, the medical report, and the role attributed to the accused by the prosecution, the court rejected the bail application. Arun Kumar Tripathi represented the accused in court, while Attorney General Babu Lal Ram and Attorney General Gyanendra Kumar represented the opposing parties.
