P&H HC denies pre-arrest bail to man accused of sending offensive messages to student

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of ​​a government school teacher accused of sending objectionable messages to his student. The Supreme Court said sexual exploitation by a teacher undermines public trust.

Judge Sumeet Goel said, “The sexual exploitation of a child by a teacher has devastating effects that extend far beyond the individual, affecting both the child’s mental development and society as a whole. Such an act of betrayal is bound to disrupt the child’s psychological and emotional growth, leading to deep-seated trauma, trust issues and long-term emotional distress.”

The Court added that it destroys the child’s trust in the teacher-pupil relationship, traditionally seen as sacred. The sense of security and respect is replaced by fear, confusion and shame.

It was further emphasized that breaching trust undermines the fundamental role of teachers as figures of integrity and guidance, and “undermines public confidence in the education system and the moral values ​​it upholds in the education system.”

These observations were made in response to the anticipatory bail plea under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) of a Haryana Government School teacher who was accused of sending objectionable messages to his student. It was alleged that the teacher also threatened the student to expel her from school and kill her.

An FIR was lodged under Sections 351(3), 75(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is a teacher (Hindi) by profession at Government Girls Senior Secondary School and that no complaint has ever been filed against him till date and that he has been wrongly accused.

On the other hand, the state counsel alleged that the applicant sent offensive messages to the complainant and later deleted them. Moreover, to get the truth out, a custody hearing of the applicant would be necessary and therefore, it is requested that the interim bail be rejected, he added.

After hearing the arguments, the Court held that “When a teacher exploits his or her position, he or she not only harms the well-being of the individual child, but also undermines societal trust in institutions that should be safe places for learning and growth.”

Judge Goel stressed that at this stage there is no evidence that there is any likelihood that a case exists against the applicant or that the applicant has been wrongly implicated in the case.

The Court noted that the victim categorically stated that she had been threatened by the applicant. It is not appropriate to grant provisional bail, as this would necessarily impede an effective investigation.

The judge ruled that “the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant essentially lead to the unequivocal conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to the advance payment.”

The court held that questioning the applicant in custody is necessary for an effective investigation and to establish the truth, and dismissed the request.

Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAY Haryana.

Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 244

Title: XXX v. XXX