The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the denial of bail to a teacher accused of sexually harassing and assaulting his minor girl students in the case of C Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr.
In the ruling, Justice Umesh M Adiga emphasized the grave nature of the offenses committed by the petitioner. Despite being a teacher, the accused allegedly sexually harassed young students, disregarding his position and status in society.
The Court acknowledged that teachers are revered and considered god-like figures in the country. However, due to the alleged behavior of the petitioner, parents may hesitate to send their daughters to school.
The case came to light in March when some villagers reported the petitioner's illegal acts to the Block Education Officer (BEO) of Madhugiri. Upon investigation, the BEO and a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) visited the school and heard accounts from several students who described instances of sexual harassment and assault by the accused.
Based on the complaint filed by the BEO, the police registered a case under sections 8 (punishment for sexual assault) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The petitioner sought bail but was initially denied by a Fast Track Special Court (FTSC). Consequently, he appealed to the High Court, which upheld the denial of bail.
The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case because he had raised concerns about a villager operating a shop on the school premises. He argued that no previous complaints had been filed against him.
In response, the State argued that the seriousness of the crimes committed against multiple children rendered the case unsuitable for granting bail. It also pointed out that the survivors had no connection to the petty shop owner, undermining the petitioner's defense.
The Court observed that the survivors consistently stated that the petitioner had sexually harassed and assaulted them. These statements, in the Court's view, provided prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offenses.
Additionally, the Court noted that the survivors had no reason to make false statements against the accused since they were not associated with the petty shop owner.
Based on these findings, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny bail to the petitioner.
Advocate AN Radha Krishna represented the petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Mahesh Shetty appeared for the State.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Karnataka High Court bail denial teacher sexual harassment assault minor girl students C Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr heinous offenses position and status in society gods parents' reluctance Block Education Officer (BEO) Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) sexual offenses POCSO Act villagers' complaint false implication previous complaints survivors' statements prima facie evidence denial of bail Advocate AN Radha Krishna High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Mahesh Shetty.
