Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition where a Government School teacher was seeking bail for offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, the Bench of Umesh M. Adiga, J.*, rejected the petition while strictly observing that teachers/ Gurus are considered akin to Gods in India, however due to the petitioner’s alleged actions, parents are afraid to send their girls to the school lest their name, fame and future are destroyed. The Court further observed that sexual harassment of children is not only a crime against an individual but it a crime against society.
The petitioner has been working as an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School in Borangute village for about 6-7 years and it has been alleged that he has been sexually abusing minor girl students, aged 8-11 years, studying from Class IV to Class VI standards. In March 2023, some villagers informed the Block Education Officer about the harassment perpetrated by the petitioner. The BEO reached the school and made enquiries with the victim students who stated that the petitioner used to touch them inappropriately and also say obscene things to them. The girls also stated that the petitioner ask them to touch his private body parts and used to remove their and his dresses.
Upon the enquiry, the BEO filed a complaint, and the Police registered a case under the provisions of POCSO Act. After completing their investigations, the Police arrested the petitioner and was later sent to judicial custody.
The petitioner filed a bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. Coming before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and that there are not sufficient materials to believe that he has committed the offences. Furthermore, he argued that he has been working in the Government School for 6-7 years, back then no one ever accused him of inappropriate behaviour.
Per contra, the respondents contended that the crimes committed by the petitioner is heinous and he has perpetrated the harassment not only on one minor girl but several of them. Since the petitioner threatened them with dire consequences, hence the minors did not file any complaint against the petitioner. The respondent further argued that just because there was no previous complaint of such nature against the petitioner, it cannot be a ground to hold that a false complaint has been now.
The High Court upon perusal of the facts and contentions, pointed out that the petitioner’s actions prima facie shows his involvement in the alleged offences.
The Court strictly observed that the crime as heinous in nature and the petitioner without thinking of his status and position in the society, harassed the minor girls and threatened them with dire consequences, which further dissuaded the girls from lodging any complaint.
[C. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 21, decided on 11-05-2023]
*Order written by Justice Umesh M. Adiga
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner- A.N. Radha Krishan, Adv;
Respondent- Mahesh Shetty HCGP.
