The Kerala High Court in the case XXX v. State of Kerala observed and has allowed the bail petition filed by a drawing teacher who is accused of assaulting six of his students, stating it is doubtful that the incident took place on the same day.
The bench headed by Justice Sophy Thomas in the case observed that it is true that there is a delay of six days in making the complaint by the victim girls.
Moreover, the allegations are raised that on the same day, the petitioner sexually assaulted six girl students of the same class also seems doubtful and the petitioner is in the judicial custody from 12.20.2023 and the investigation has progressed substantially. So the said Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
The prosecution submitted before the court that on 12.12.2023, between 11.20 am and 12 noon, the petitioner sexually assaulted the students.
In response to it, the counsel appearing for the for petitioner submitted before the court that not only was there a delay of six days in reporting the alleged incident but that the accused has been in judicial custody since 20.12.2023 and his continued detention is not required for the purpose of investigation.
The court in the case observed and has imposed several conditions for bail which included that the petitioner shall not enter the limits of school premises for a period of three months or till the end of the investigation, whichever is earlier. The petitioner was also ordered not to contact the victims or their families, and shall not influence or intimidate them, either directly or indirectly.
Therefore, the petitioner in the case shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses and shall not tamper with the investigation in the case.
The court also charged petitioner under section 354(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, IPC (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 10 read with Section 9(f) (aggravated sexual assault of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 75, the punishment for cruelty to child of Juvenile Justice, the Care and Protection of Children Act.
The counsel, Advocate PK Varghese, Advocate MT Sameer, Advocate KR Arun Krishnan, Advocate Dhanesh V Madhavan, Advocate Jerry Mathew and Advocate Reghu Sreedharan appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan represented the respondent.