IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3256 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.504/2010 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- GEORGE PAUL.E., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.E.V.PAUL, EDAPPALLY HOUSE, DEEPTHI BHAVAN, KOTTANELLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3256 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 377, 294, 340 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as a Hindi teacher in a school. On 18/08/2008, a complaint was received from a student alleging that petitioner compelled him to have unnatural sexual activities. He was also showing obscene books to the student. Thereafter, complaints were received from six students, making similar allegations against petitioner and therefore, a complaint was lodged by the Manager of the school before the Magistrate Court, which was forwarded to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. A crime was registered. 3. According to Learned counsel for petitioner, on an allegation that a boy gave a complaint on 18/08/2008, petitioner was suspended from service by the management. The suspension order was challenged before the District Education Officer and during enquiry, it was revealed that a complaint was procurred from a student without the knowledge of his parents. This fact is referred to in Annexure B order of DEO. It is stated therein that the father told the authority that it was under compulsion that the B.A No.3256 OF 2010 2 child was made to give a complaint like this etc. DEO, therefore, set aside the suspension order and petitioner was directed to be re-instated. The said order was challenged by the management before this court as per a writ petition. 4. In the writ petition, management was directed to approach the Government and a revision was filed. It was dismissed by order dated 08/06/2010 directing the petitioner to be re-instated. Since the management is forced to re-instate petitioner, the present complaint is filed, with an ulterior motive to expel petitioner from the school. The allegations made against petitioner are absolutely false and the complaint is filed at a belated stage, it is submitted. It is also submitted that a statement is given by petitioner in writing to the management, but it was given under compulsion and it was retracted before the DEO. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for de facto complainant were heard. According to learned Public Prosecutor, serious allegations are made against petitioner regarding his perverse sexual activities committed against minor students. The students used to be called by petitioner under the pretext of giving special class. Thereafter, the students were compelled to undergo perverse sexual activities and they were also subjected to such activities. They were shown obscene books B.A No.3256 OF 2010 3 and video graphs. It is also submitted that the complaint cannot be said to be belated. When the first complaint was given on 18/08/2010, a Parent Teachers Association meeting was held and it was decided that in welfare of the children, no complaint need be given to police, but, it was sufficient if the petitioner is suspended. 6. In such circumstances, petitioner was informed about this and he gave a letter in writing admitting all the facts and he was asked to take leave. Thereafter, he was suspended for a period of 15 days. For extending the period of suspension, the management approached DEO and they were permitted to extend suspension. While so, petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education and challenged the order of suspension. The suspension order was set aside and he was directed to be re- instated. But, as per the order of Government in a revision filed by the management, it was found that there is some procedural irregularity in passing a suspension order and the management was allowed to continue with the proceedings in accordance with law, and pending enquiry, petitioner was allowed to be re-instated. But, the allegations made against petitioner were not found to be incorrect or false, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, there can be no doubt that the allegations made against B.A No.3256 OF 2010 4 petitioner in the complaint are very serious in nature. The victims are the students who are all minors and petitioner is the teacher. It is true that certain orders are passed directing re-instation of petitioner, but, in the complaint itself, the manager, explained the reason for delay in complaint. The statements of students who are the alleged victims are also seen recorded by police. 8. It is also relevant to note that petitioner has no case that prior to 18/08/2008, when first complaint was made, the management was harassing him in any manner. The whole rift between the parties started only after 18/08/2008 after receiving the complaint from a student. The statement of the boy who is allegedly assaulted by the petitioner sexually on 18/08/2008 is also available in the case diary. On considering the various facts and circumstances, I am least inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner in a case of this nature. It is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to a person in a case of this nature. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv