GIRIRAJSINH NANBHA JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate for the applicant has made a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no.2 who has been charged under Ss. 354A, 354D, 506 of the IPC and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Mr. Jani submits that no reason has been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail after the charge- sheet and filing of the charge-sheet has been made a ground to release him on bail. Mr. Jani has referred to the judgment in the case of Nitu Kumar Vs. Gulveer & Anr. reported in (2022) 9 SCC 222, Y. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in (2022) 9 SCC 269 and also judgment of this Court passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad Vs. State of Gujarat, passed in Criminal Misc. Application no. 18985 of 2022 dtd. 30/11/2022 to submit that the respondent was teacher of the victim, aged about 14 years, submits that the learned Sessions Judge very randomly without even referring to the facts of the case, has granted bail to the tuition teacher who was under moral duty to protect the students and more specifically the girl child who is a taught of the instructor. Mr. Jani submits that it is not only the case of conveying message on the mobile phone, but the tuition teacher was inappropriately touching the hands and legs of the victim girl and had threatened to defame in the society if she spoke about the sexual harassment.

(2.) Mr. Rachh, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 submits that the punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec. 354A would extend upto one year or with fine or with both; and for the offence under Sec. 354D -stalking, the punishment prescribed for imprisonment for 3 years with fine, since it is the first complaint against the accused. Mr. Rachh submits that there are other considerations which had led to filing of the FIR and he submits that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail only after the charge-sheet was filed and submits that the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 would become applicable and further states that stringent conditions have been laid down which would ensure safety of the victim girl.

(3.) The only apprehension which would lie in the mind of this Court would be the influence of the accused as a teacher on the victim who is a student attending the tuition classes. In the era of development of technology and when the offences are committed through mobile phones, the possibility of influencing the minor victims would become large. However, considering the Sec. invoked against the accused and the punishment so prescribed to the alleged offence, this Court does not find any necessity at present to cancel the bail of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has considered filing of the charge-sheet as a ground for granting bail, but taking into consideration the tender age of the victim girl over and above the conditions laid down, it is further directed to the accused that he shall not directly or indirectly contact the victim girl by any electronic means and would keep himself away from the school premises of the victim girl.