Badlapur sexual assault: Bombay High Court denies anticipatory bail to chairman, secretary of school

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to the chairman and secretary of the Badlapur school where two minor girls aged fours years were sexually assaulted by a contract worker.

Single-judge Justice RN Laddha passed the order after the two accused moved the High Court against a sessions court order rejecting their plea on September 10.

The High Court took into account the tender age of the victims, their trauma and also noted that the accused could tamper with evidence or pressurise witnesses.

"Considering that the victims are minors, the trauma they have endeared will have a profound impact on their adolescent years, leaving long lasting and irreparable psychological scars. The applicants hold important positions in the school where the unfortunate incident took place, thus there are chances that they tamper the evidence and pressurise the witnesses, who are employees of the school. In light of theses and precedents set by the court, public prosecutor has rightly argued that this case is not suitable for bail," the Court said while rejecting the plea.

Two kindergarten girl students were allegedly sexually abused by Akshay Shinde, a 23-year-old, at a school in Badlapur in August. He was later arrested by the Police and sent to judicial custody.

Shinde was later killed by police on September 23.

The High Court is separately considering that matter after Shinde's father moved the Court claiming that it was a fake encounter.

Meanwhile, the two school officials, who are yet to be arrested by the police, moved the Court for anticipatory bail.

During the hearing, the counsel for the two accused raised doubts about the occurrence of the incident.

They contended that the victims attended the Independence Day function on August 14 though the alleged incident happened on August 12-13.

They were also accompanied by their parents and showed no signs of distress, it was submitted.

Further, they argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR and conducting the medical examination.

On the other hand, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar contended that any delay in filing the FIR was due to the failure by the two accused to report the incident on time as required by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). He also alleged that the CCTV footage from the date in question had been tampered with.

Hence, he raised concerns that evidence could be compromised if the accused are released.

The Court noted that there was prima facie evidence indicating that the victims had voiced their concerns to their class teachers and others. Additionally, it was observed that the accused, despite having knowledge of the incident before August 16—when the police were contacted—failed to report it to the police or local authorities.

“The legislation (POCSO Act) imposes a legal obligation on individuals who suspect or are aware of such incidents to inform the Special Juvenile Police (SJP) or local police. This is not merely a procedural formality; it is a serious issue. The repercussions for failing to report are significant, regardless of the length of the sentence outlined in Section 21,” the court noted.

It further emphasized the necessity of exercising caution when dealing with issues involving school authorities and educational institutions that have failed to report offences under the POCSO Act.

In view of the above, it rejected the bail plea.