Orissa High Court: In the present application, the petitioner, Principal of Swami Arupananda Higher Secondary School of Education & Technology, Kurtanga, sought bail before the Special Court, Jagatsinghpur, for allegedly failing to report a sexual harassment complaint made by a female student against a Math Lecturer, in violation of Sections 19 and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).
A Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., while allowing the application, quashed the order remanding the petitioner to jail custody by refusing bail and directed his release on bail. The Court held that the Special Court failed to take notice of the allegation and erroneously remanded the petitioner to custody by refusing to grant bail, in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background:
The case arose from the Principal suppressing a complaint lodged by a female student on 15-01-2025 regarding sexual harassment and misbehavior by a Math Lecturer. Despite the lecturer admitting his misconduct, the petitioner failed to report the matter to the President of the Governing Body or higher authorities. Consequently, the victim approached the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur through Jana Sunani (General Grievance), prompting the Sub-Collector to seek a report from the petitioner and subsequently lodge an FIR, leading to the registration of the Zero FIR dated 22-07-2025.
Consequently, while the matter was under investigation, the petitioner approached the Court for pre-arrest bail. However, the Court, not inclined to entertain the application, directed him to surrender before the Court in seisin and move for bail, to be considered on its own merit the same day. Accordingly, the petitioner unsuccessfully approached the Court in seisin, which led to the present application for post-arrest bail.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the only ground that was canvassed by the petitioner at that stage was that the offence alleged against him under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act being bailable in nature in view of the maximum punishment provided therein for one year, he should have been granted bail by the Court in seisin over the matter, and he having not been granted bail, the Court might kindly indulge its discretion to grant bail to him.
On careful scrutiny of the allegation, the Court noted that the petitioner, being the Principal of the School, on receiving the complaint from the victim and enquiring into it, allegedly failed to report commission of an offence in terms of Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, which mandated that any person, including the child, who apprehended or had knowledge of an offence under the Act, was required to provide such information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (‘SJPU’) or local police. The Court observed that Section 19(2) of the POCSO Act further mandated that every report under Section 19(1) of the POSCO Act was to be entered in a book kept by the police unit.
The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner, as Principal, for not reporting the offence of sexual harassment under Section 12 of the POCSO Act despite being informed by the victim girl student, amounted to abdication of duty under Section 19 read with Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act. Though subject to proof in trial, the allegation gave rise to penal action under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, which provided for maximum imprisonment of one year, thereby disclosing commission of a bailable offence as per Item No.3 of Table-II of the first schedule of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
It was not in dispute that all offences under the POCSO Act were triable by a Special Court, normally a Court of Sessions, notified under Section 28 of the POCSO Act and empowered under Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act to take cognizance without committal. The Court emphasised that no person was to be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a case of bailable offence, the accused had a fundamental right to be released on bail, and denial of bail amounted to deprivation of personal liberty and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court highlighted that from the materials placed on record and the specific allegation raised against the petitioner in that case, the culpability of the petitioner being for commission of offence only under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act which provided for maximum imprisonment of one year and with fine, the Special Court should not have remanded the accused petitioner to custody by refusing bail to him, but the Special Court failed to take notice of the allegation and erroneously remanded the petitioner to custody by refusing to grant bail in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that it was strange, but true, that despite making an in-depth analysis of facts and allegations raised against the petitioner, the trial Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner and remanded him to custody. The Court therefore quashed the order remanding the petitioner to jail custody by refusing bail and directed his release on bail on such terms and conditions as were deemed fit and proper by the Special Court.
The Court, thus, held that the application stood allowed and the petitioner was to be released on bail in accordance with law by the Court in seisin over the matter. The order refusing bail was set aside/quashed and a copy of that order was to be immediately transmitted to the concerned Court through E-mail or any faster mode.
The Court further directed that the petitioner might utilise the downloaded copy of that order from the Court website to furnish bail, and the Court in seisin was not to delay in accepting bail irrespective of closure on holiday, as the petitioner was in custody for commission of bailable offence. Accordingly, the Registrar General was requested to circulate the soft copy of that judgment to all Courts dealing with POCSO Act offences for guidance.
[Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 10425 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: S. C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with S. Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: C. Mohanty, Addl. PP
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
