Badlapur sexual abuse case: Bombay High Court rejects pre-arrest bail pleas of chairperson, secretary of school

“Considering that victims are minors, the trauma they endure can profoundly affect their adolescent years, leaving them with lasting and irreparable psychological scars. At this critical stage, there is significant risk that in this case applicants may exert pressure on witnesses and tamper with evidence. In light of these circumstances, the PP rightly argued that this case is not appropriate for granting anticipatory bail,” Justice Rajesh N Laddha noted in the order.

The applicants claimed that they were innocent and claimed the victims attended school on August 14 and participated in the Independence Day celebration on August 15 accompanied by parents, and during the same period, no complaints or grievances about the August 13 incident were reported. The applicants claimed the victims appeared to be in good health, showing no signs of distress. The applicants also argued that there was a significant delay in filing FIR and carrying out medical examinations. They argued that there was no need to recover any documents or evidence from the applicants.

However, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the police, argued that the offence in question was serious and that applicants were responsible for the school’s management and had an obligation to report the incident after their guardians approached the school’s principal.

After perusing past Supreme Court judgments, the court noted that the legislature has imposed an obligation on individuals who are either suspect or aware of offences under the Pocso Act to report the incident to Special Juvenile Police or local police and such a duty cannot be overlooked. “Interpretations of failing to report such incidents are serious,” the bench noted.

Justice Laddha observed that prima facie material indicate that the guardians voiced their concerns to the principal and other staff members and applicants were aware of it before August 16 when the police contacted them.

“Despite having knowledge, the incidents were not reported to SJP or local police. This delay appears to be primarily due to applicants’ negligence for reasons known only to them. Additionally, there are suspicions regarding digital evidence provided by school authorities as the footage (CCTV) from day of incident is missing and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports are awaited,” the bench held.

Noting that Pocso Act was enacted to “safeguard children from sexual crimes by prioritising welfare of child over the interest of perpetrators,” the bench rejected the pleas.

In a related development, another bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj K Chavan of the Bombay High Court, while hearing a suo motu PIL, pulled up the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of state police as to why the two school trustees, who are absconding, could not be nabbed so far.

“The Mumbai Police goes to any extent and to different states and nabs accused persons. How could two persons are not be nabbed by you (state) so far. You waited for the anticipatory bail granted to them?” Justice Chavan remarked. Advocate General Birendra Saraf representing the state government differed with the judge’s remark and submitted that the police were taking all steps to trace the accused. “The moment you say they are absconding, this question (why accused not nabbed) is bound to arise,” Justice Chavan said.

Saraf also submitted that two chargesheets were filed in the case and copies of the same will be given to the complainants in both the FIRs by Wednesday and all assistance will be provided for compensation to the victims along with arrangements for admission to another school.

“We are to ensure that justice prevails and that is our responsibility and we are not saying anything else. Our responsibility for justice is done to the accused or victims,” Justice Mohite-Dere said and posted further hearing to October 23.