Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the bail application of a school principal accused of sexually assaulting multiple minor students under his care. 

The matter came to light when six students belonging to socially marginalized groups (OBC and SC categories), had reportedly stopped attending school.  Upon inquiry, the children informed their parents that the accused principal had been fondling them and touching their private parts. They also alleged that he showed them sexually explicit material on his mobile phone.

A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the principal on March 25, 2024, at the Araniya Police Station in District Bulandshahr and he was arrested.

Accused Pratap Singh was booked for offences under multiple Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 354 (Assault or Criminal Force on a Woman with Intent to Outrage Her Modesty), Section 376AB (Punishment for Rape of a Woman under 12 Years of Age), along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST Act.

Seeking bail, Singh's counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated due to ongoing issues between the families of the victims and the school administration.

The counsel also contended that the students’ failure to regularly attend school was linked to disputes over state-sponsored scholarships that the victims' families had not received. Furthermore, she pointed out the lack of medical evidence to substantiate the prosecution's claims of sexual assault.

In a bid to discredit the charges, the accused presented a medical certificate showing that he was suffering from cough and breathlessness between March 10 and March 25, 2024, and had been advised rest by a physician. His counsel further highlighted that Singh had been a cancer patient and expressed concerns over his deteriorating health while in jail.

On the other hand, the state’s counsel, along with the informant, vehemently opposed the bail application. They emphasized the gravity of the charges, noting the tender age of the victims and the psychological trauma they suffered. The prosecution also accused the defense of fabricating the medical certificate and dismissed the health concerns raised by Singh’s counsel.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Krishan Pahal decided against granting bail to the accused.

Court acknowledged the severity of the allegations and took into account the young age of the victims

In his order, Justice Pahal remarked, "Taking into consideration the tender age of the victim i.e. from 9-13 years, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant". 

Court further clarified that the observations made during the bail hearing would not affect the trial's outcome.

Case Title: Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others