The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail application of a teacher who was accused of molesting a minor student saying that the parents send their children to tuition centres based on a trust that the teachers will take care of them.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Needless to say, the parents send their children, whether daughters or sons, to tuition centres on the trust and faith that their teachers will take care of them. In the present case, the exploitation of the minor victim by a teacher, taking advantage of her tender age, has made the offence graver and serious.”

The Bench said that despite being the teacher of the victim who was only 12 years of age, the accused had committed the offence of outraging her modesty, kissing, hugging, and touching her private parts.

Advocate Swati Verma appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused while APP Manoj Pant and Advocate Ashutosh Kaushik appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Brief Facts -

An FIR was registered on the complaint of the victim, aged about 12 years, in which she had alleged that one ‘RS’ and the petitioner who resided in the same building on the third floor, used to impart tuition to her. It was alleged that when her mother and ‘RS’ had gone out to the market, the petitioner asked her to come to the third floor and there, he forcefully held her hand, hugged her, and kissed her. It was further alleged the petitioner again committed the same acts and the victim ran away from the spot as a result of which he threatened to spoil her career in case she revealed it to anyone.

Thereafter, the victim revealed some of the incidents to her teacher, who then called her mother and informed her about it. The victim then narrated the entire incident to her mother, and based on her statement, a case was registered. Hence, the petitioner sought regular bail before the High Court for the offences punishable under Sections 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 10/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “With this background and the victim and other witnesses supporting the case entirely in their testimony before the learned Trial Court, this Court considering the object and intent of the act, the tender age of the victim, the conduct of the applicant of indulging in outraging the modesty of victim child, indulging in sexual conversations, taking advantage of the relationship of being a teacher and being 22 years elder to her as well as taking advantage of ignorance of the child about good touch and bad touch, not only violated the body of the victim child but also disregarded the sanctity of his relationship with the minor child of being his teacher.”

The Court said that the conduct of the accused reveals that he had neither respected the nobility of the profession nor the student-teacher relationship. It further noted that the victim was traumatized and had confided in another female teacher who had also educated her about good and bad touch and had also informed her mother.

“It shows the embarrassment and trauma faced by the victim that she had not been able to divulge the incident to her mother earlier as she was under fear that she will not fare well in her examination as told to her by the present applicant”, added the Court.

The Court considered the gravity of offence which was reflected in the fact that the minor victim used to go for tuition at the accused’s house, and therefore, found no ground for grant of bail at such a stage.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application.

Cause Title- Sandeep Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:5356)

Click here to read/download the Judgment