P.R.Jayaseelan vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.903/2022 of Chittur Police Station, Palakkad District. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by a minor boy, aged 14 years, on 2.11.2022 and the offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under sections 7,8,9f and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act(POSCO Act) and under section 323 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner is a school teacher, and the Survivor is the student in the said school. It is the allegation in the complaint submitted by the Survivor that during the second week of June, 2022 and on 27.9.2022, the petitioner with sexual intention, inserted his hands through the dress of the victim and pinched his nipples. It is also alleged that, on another occasion, the petitioner caressed his head using his fingers. It is the further allegation against the petitioner that some students studying in the same school manhandled by him. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and as the petitioner apprehends arrest as part of the investigation of the said case, this Bail Application is submitted.

Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Sunny Xavier, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the allegations raised against the petitioner are false. According to him, the defacto complainant and his father were constant troublemakers in the school and also to the teachers. On several occasions, the defacto complainant had behaved with teachers and the other students in a rude manner and on some occasions, the father of the defacto complainant intervened, and he scolded the petitioner in filthy language in front of the other students as well. It is further pointed out that the Headmistress of the school was compelled to submit a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittur on 27.9.2022 consequent to the acts committed by the father of the defacto complainant. Besides the same, some of the students have also submitted complaint before the Police in connection with an incident where the defacto complainant's father attempted to assault them. In the said complaint, it is mentioned that when the petitioner herein intervened, the father of the defacto complainant scolded the petitioner and threatened them. The petitioner also submitted a complaint before the Police in respect of the very same incident. All the said complaints are produced as Annexure-2.In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, highlighting that it is a case based on false allegations.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would oppose the aforesaid application. The learned Public Prosecutor made available a statement of the investigation officer along with the report of the Child Welfare Committee on 2.2.2023 and the statement of the defacto complainant recorded under section 164 Cr. PC. It is pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the matter is under investigation. Since the petitioner is a teacher, he was supposed to act as a role model for the students, and hence allegations are to viewed very seriously. Therefore, the dismissal of the Bail Application was sought.

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions on both sides.

It is discernible that the applications earlier submitted for anticipatory bail were dismissed by the Sessions Court. One of the crucial contentions raised by the petitioner is that of a false implication. The allegations against the petitioner is that he inappropriately touched the victim's chest on two occasions. On going through the F.I. statement and also the statement given by the Survivor under section 164 Cr.PC, the aforesaid acts are mentioned. However, one of the crucial aspects that is revealed from the materials placed on record is that there are several disputes between the defacto complainant and his father on one side, and the teachers and some of the students of the said school on the other side. The materials placed on record indicate that several complaints are submitted against the father of the defacto complainant. It is discernible from the records that the defacto complainant also approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.33554/2022 seeking police protection for the minor boy for attending the school. On going through the F.I. statement of the victim, it can be seen that he makes complaints about the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner and against several students of the same school. On the other hand, the complaints produced as Annexure-2 which were submitted before the Police by the Headmistress, the students and the petitioner herein, contain several allegations against the father of the defacto complainant and also with respect to the conduct of the defacto complainant. Besides the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner also made available a copy of the report submitted by the Headmistress of the school submitted before the Child Welfare Committee. In the report, several instances highlighting the peculiar behavioral pattern of the defacto complainant was mentioned. To be precise, as per the report, the defacto complainant's nature was to the effect that he does not even like the other students touching him and reacts rudely when he was touched. Certain allegations against the defacto complainant's father are also mentioned in the report. The aforesaid materials indicate a rift between the parties concerned.

Another crucial aspect is that as per the report submitted by the District Child Protection Officer, Palakkad addressed to the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, it is mentioned that as per the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee in OP No.858/P.A/2022, it was directed that the service of a Clinical Psychologist and Psychiatrist should be made available to the defacto complainant for reducing the mental tension of the victim. In order to implement the said direction, the Child Protection Officer contacted the father of the victim, and consequently, the father along with the defacto complainant, appeared before the said officer. However, both of them have refused to avail the services of the Clinical Psychologist, and thus such a session could not conducted.

When all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, even though allegations are seen raised against the petitioner, as per the statement of the defacto complainant in the FIS and the statement under section 164 CrPC, the circumstances under which the said complaint was made, evoke some doubts. Admittedly, there are several disputes between the parties. It is reported that the petitioner has been in the teaching profession for the past 28 years, and there are no criminal antecedents.

In such circumstances, taking note of the entire sequence of events and the nature of allegations and counter-allegations, I am of the view that the denial of anticipatory bail to the petitioner may not be proper. The matter has to be investigated and whether the allegations raised against the petitioner are correct or not is to be found out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the light of the allegations and counter allegations, I am of the view that it is not at all safe to allow the detention of the petitioner. However, in order to find out the truth, a proper investigation is absolutely necessary, for which the cooperation of the petitioner with the Investigation Officer is to be ensured. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that, as the petitioner is the teacher, he is likely to influence the other witnesses, I am of the view that the said apprehension can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

In such circumstances, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions and conditions:

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation;

ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded;

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report;

v) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

viii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.