Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the pre-arrest bail of the chairman and secretary of the Badlapur school where two minors were sexually assaulted in August observing that considering material on records, there are chances of evidence being tampered and witnesses being influenced. The court also noted that it needs to consider that the victims are minors and the incident is likely to have a profound impact leaving them scarred for life.
The HC was hearing pleas by the school’s chairman and secretary seeking pre-arrest bail, after their pleas were rejected by the sessions court at Thane. While rejecting the pleas, Justice RN Laddha also observed that there is material to show the two accused were aware of the alleged incident before August 16 but they failed to take any steps to report the same to police or local authority.
“The victims are minors. The trauma that they have endured can profoundly affect their adolescent years leaving them with lasting psychological scars,” Justice RN Laddha said. The court emphasised that undisputedly, the two applicants were responsible for managing the school and hence were liable to inform the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or the local police about the incidents as mandated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
“There is prima facie material indicating that the victims parents' / guardians had voiced their grievances to the class teacher and other staff members. The applicants were aware of the incident before August 16. Despite having knowledge, they did not report the incident to police,” the judge underlined.
Emphasising on the authorities’ duty to inform immediately about the incident of sexual assault, the HC said: “This duty is not merely a procedure that can be overlooked. The repercussions or failure to report such offences are serious.”
Dismissing their arguments that the FIR was filed belatedly, the court said that the delay was “primarily because of applicants' negligence for reasons known only to them”.
State Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar had expressed apprehension that if the applicants were granted protection, then there were chances of destruction of evidence and influencing witnesses as they continued in the same school.
The HC noted in its detailed order that the CCTV footage of the school premises of the days of the incidents is missing. “Suspicions are raised regarding the integrity of digital evidence provided by school authorities as footage of the day of incident is missing. Forensic laboratory report is still awaited,” the court noted.
The court said it must exercise caution while granting protection in such serious offences. “There is no straight jacket formula. Court must exercise caution as granting protection in serious offence can lead to miscarriage of justice like tampering with evidence,” it said.
Advocate for the applicants argued that the police had seized all the documentary evidence and relevant documents, hence their custodial interrogation was not required.
The court said anticipatory bail can be denied if custodial interrogation is required. “However, its (custodial interrogation) non-requirement cannot be ground alone to grant anticipatory bail,” Justice Laddha said.
Seeking protection from arrest, the duo had raised suspicion on whether the incident took place, claiming the two victims had attended the independence day celebrations in the school on August 15 and no complaint was raised then.
Two girls – aged four and five years – were sexually assaulted inside the washroom of the school by a male attendant on August 13 and 14. However, the police registered a complaint only on August 16 after large scale protests. The attendant was hired on August 1.
