In a recent case, the Allahabad High Court, in Deepak Prakash Singh v State, rejected the anticipatory bail application of a teacher accused of sexually assaulting a mentally challenged 14-year-old girl. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav denied anticipatory bail, citing the grave nature of the allegations and the importance of ensuring justice in such cases.
The court observed, “A Teacher plays a very important role in shaping the future of their students and such conduct of the teacher would certainly create an atmosphere of fear in the minds of people of society, and such perpetrators should not go unpunished and should receive just punishment from the Courts of law to curb such incidents in the future.”
The case revolved around accusations that the accused, who was purportedly a teacher by profession, had sexually assaulted a minor victim from a scheduled caste. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the accused allegedly molested the minor victim on July 26 of the current year.
The complainant and his daughter (the victim) were tending to goats in the neighborhood on that fateful day. Subsequently, he sent his daughter home to fetch water. While she was alone, the accused is alleged to have called her and forcibly taken her into his house before molesting her.
The FIR lodged against the accused included charges of rape, in addition to offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO Act) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The accused contended that he was falsely implicated due to preexisting disputes and a pending civil case with the complainant. His lawyer argued that the FIR was filed after an unexplained delay and contained inconsistencies. It was further emphasized that the accused had no prior criminal record, and there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the alleged crime, urging the court to grant pre-arrest bail.
The State government opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
The court took into consideration the victim, a mentally challenged minor who was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, and classified the crime as “heinous.” The judge also acknowledged the government counsel’s statement that the medical report, while not confirming the rape, constituted a legal conclusion rather than a medical one.
The court asserted that the absence of injuries on the victim’s private parts or other areas of her body did not rule out the possibility of rape. Taking into account the gravity of the allegations, the medical report, and the role assigned to the accused by the prosecution in the alleged crime, the court decided to reject the request for anticipatory bail.
Advocate Arun Kumar Tripathi represented the applicant (accused), while Government Advocate Babu Lal Ram and Advocate Gyanendra Kumar appeared for the opposite parties. This ruling by the Allahabad High Court underscores the significance of addressing such serious allegations to ensure justice and safeguard the rights of vulnerable victims.