CRL A/1102/2026 of A.Suresh Vs The State Rep. by, The Deputy Superintendent of Po on 15 September 2026

Judgment

The appellant/accused in Crime No. 66 of 2026 for offences under Section 296(b), 75(2) of BNS and Section 10 and 9(f) of POCSO Act r/w. Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, was arrested on 24.06.2026. He filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1599 of 2026 and the same was dismissed on 24.08.2026 against which the present appeal is filed.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 23.06.2026 at about 10.00 p.m., the warden of Government Ekalavya Model Residential Higher Secondary

School, Vellimalai, Kalvarayan Hills Taluk, Kallakurichi District, had lodged a complaint stating that on 21.06.2026 at about 6.00 p.m. five 9th standard students, who were staying in the hostel, informed her that the appellant herein on 18.06.2026 at about 3.00 p.m. entered their classroom and made sexual assault on them. Hence the above complaint lodged.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The school is a government residential school for Scheduled Tribe people. More than 150 students are studying and staying there. It is the duty of the warden to ensure that all students are properly cared for, provided with food, supplied with basic amenities and kept safe. The appellant is employed in the school as Assistant Headmaster for the past 13 years. There is no regular headmaster and it is the appellant, who is taking care of the entire students. The de facto complainant/warden joined the school two years before and she takes off during weekends and not staying in the hostel, which was questioned by the appellant and there was a misunderstanding. Due to which, taking advantage of the minor students innocence and quietness, she manipulated the situation and lodged a false complaint, when she was off duty. He further submitted that, in the above circumstances, it would have been appropriate if the Child Helpline had been informed immediately, they could have visited, conducted an inquiry, and thereafter, a complaint should have been lodged.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, there is a delay of six days in lodging the complaint. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 18.06.2026. The students are said to have informed the de facto complainant on 21.06.2026, but the complaint was lodged only on 23.06.2026. The respondent police, even without conducting any preliminary inquiry, arrested the appellant on the next day, i.e., 24.06.2026. The appellant had shown much interest in the children's education. He was a strict person, ensured that the Government school, which primarily serves to Scheduled Tribe people, achieve a 100% pass result in the academic year 2024–2025. This demonstrates his dedication. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the appellant.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the appellant's contention and submitted that the complaint was lodged based on the statement of five students. During the course of investigation, one more student also gave a statement against the appellant. Thus, there are a totally six victim students studying in the 9th standard. It is alleged that the appellant misbehaved with them and committed sexual assault, pursuant to which they informed the warden, who lodged the complaint. Thereafter, the victims were examined, and their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded. All the statements confirm the sexual assault committed by the appellant. In the present case, the investigation has been completed. The charge sheet was made ready on

14.08.2026, listing witnesses LW1 to LW28 and documents and uploaded on 28.08.2026. However, it is yet to be numbered.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 8 strongly opposed the contention of the appellant and submitted that the victims had clearly narrated the sexual assault committed by the appellant. Though the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 18.06.2026, the victims were initially in a state of shock and fear and after gaining confidence, informed their warden about the incident. The warden thereafter examined the victims and on being satisfied with the facts disclosed by them, lodged a complaint. The victims also gave statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein they reiterated the allegations relating to the incident. She further submitted that, the appellant being a teacher would cause threat to the victims’ ability to depose freely. Hence, she strongly opposed the bail petition.

7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the appellant was the Assistant Headmaster of the school for the past 13 years and the school also reached 100% result and the Collector also issued Commemorative certificate. Admittedly, the de facto complainant/warden joined the school two years before. There seems to be a dispute with regard to the de facto complainant not staying at the hostel during the weekends. Out of the 150 students, some students return home and some stay in the hostel. Even if one student or no students remains in the hostel, it is the duty of the warden to stay in the hostel and cannot give any reason or excuse for not staying in the hostel. From the complaint, it is seen that on 18.06.2026, the Computer Science teacher for 11th and 12th students visited the 9th standard classroom to take a class and educate the student about the bad touch, however, during the class, apart from verbal, he had also shown some physical touches and the entire incident had taken place in the open classroom, when all students were present there. Admittedly, in this case, no Child Helpline was informed and no preliminary inquiry conducted. Further, in this case, now investigation has been completed. In view of the above, this court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

8. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions; (a) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi; (b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c) The appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court, i.e., Principal District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi on all hearing dates without fail; (d) The appellant shall not give any inconvenience or trouble knowingly or unknowingly to the third respondent as well as the respondents 4 to 8 (victims), failing which, the bail shall be cancelled without any further reference.

(e) The appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (f) The appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.08.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.1599 of 2026 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

10. This Court appreciates Ms.S.Lisa, Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents 3 to 8 for her strenuous efforts in doing research and putting forth the case of the victims effectively. The Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel as per Rules. 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI Note: Issue order copy on 16.09.2026. To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.

3. The Inspector of Police Kariyalur Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Vedampattu District Prison, Villupuram.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. RSI CRL A No. 1102 of 2026 15-09-2026