The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to a teacher accused of sexually abusing and assaulting his minor female students.
Justice Umesh M Adiga noted that the offences were heinous in nature and that the petitioner allegedly sexually abused minor kids notwithstanding his position and prestige in society as a teacher.
The Court also stated that teachers are considered gods in the country, but because of the petitioner’s actions, parents will be hesitant to send their girl daughters to school.
“The alleged crime is heinous in nature. He has sexually harassed students in IV and V classes mercilessly, without regard for his social stature or position. In this country, gurus and teachers are revered as if they were Gods. However, because of the petitioner’s claimed actions, even the parents are hesitant to send their girl child to school,” the Court stated.
In March of this year, a few villagers informed the Madhugiri Block Education Officer (BEO) about the petitioner’s alleged illegal activities. The BEO and a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) went to the school after a few children told them about sexual harassment and abuse at the hands of the accused.
As a result, the BEO filed a complaint, and the police registered a case in accordance with sections 8 (penalty for sexual assault) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A Fast Track Special Court (FTSC) refused the petitioner’s bail plea. As a result, he filed an appeal before the High Court.
The petitioner argued that he was wrongfully accused in the case after raising concerns about a villager operating a petty store on school premises. He emphasised that no previous complaints had been filed against him.
According to him, in order to settle their scores with him, some villages instructed their children to make false statements to the police.
The State, on the other side, maintained that the case was unfit for grant of bail because horrible crimes were committed against several children.
Furthermore, the survivors were not related to the petty shop owner in any manner, making the petitioner’s story untrustworthy.
The Court emphasised that the survivors had repeatedly stated that the petitioner sexually harassed and assaulted them. According to the Court, these statements demonstrated the petitioner’s prima facie involvement in the accused offences.
It also stated that the survivors had no reason to make false accusations against the accused because they had nothing to do with the petty store owner.
As a result, the Court held that the lower court was correct in denying bail to the petitioner.
