Bench dismissed bail petition of a school teacher charged with sexual harassment of minor students under POCSO and IPC. Court refused bail citing heinous nature of crime but directed trial court to conclude trial within three months.
Bail denied; trial court directed to complete trial within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Fifth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRL OP(MD) No.201 of 2019
ANBARASAN ... PETITIONER / 1st ACCUSED
Vs
THE STATE REP.BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
Crime No.6 of 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : Mr.T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate for
Mr. T. DHANDAPANI Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody since 31.08.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 9 (f), 9(m), 9(i), 10, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (i) IPC in Crime No.6 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a Teacher, Panchayat Union Primary School, Pudupatti and taking class to I to III standard students. When the Headmaster was on leave, the petitioner was taking additional class to IV and V standard students also. The complainant's daughter is now studying VI standard at Government High School, Thozhagiripatti Sugar Factory. When the complainant's daughter was studying V standard in the said School during the academic year 2017-2018, the petitioner said to have sexually harassed the girl students namely Ramya, Shalini, who were studying V Standard and Sathya, Jeyasree, Hasini, Brinda and Mahesh, who were studying III standard and also Deepika and Shalini, who were studying IV Standard. Though the petitioner knows well that the girls are aged about 12 years, he continuously harassed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ them sexually. Thereby, the complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police.
2
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that the petitioner being a School Teacher had committed grievous offence against the girl students, who were studying in his School. Though the earlier bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed, there is no change of circumstances. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the heinous crime committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, this Court directs the trial Court to complete the trial in Special.SC.No.25 of 2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
05/02/2019
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1.THE JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, PUDUKOTTAI. 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
3.THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, PUDUKOTTAI.
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.201 of 2019 Date :05/02/2019
TK/PN/SAR-4/14.02.2019/2P/5C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a school teacher accused of sexually harassing multiple minor girls.
Whether the heinous nature of the offence warrants refusal of bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anbharasan
The State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai District
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
