Delhi HC denies bail to teacher accused of molesting minor student
New Delhi, Aug 3: The Delhi High Court has denied to grant bail to a teacher accused of molesting a 12-year-old girl student, stating that educators bear responsibility of ensuring the safety and well-being of their students.
The accused, who is 22 years older than the minor victim, allegedly took advantage of both his position as a teacher and the child’s lack of awareness regarding inappropriate physical contact.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the accused not only violated the young girl’s body but also disregarded the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship.
As the teacher’s lawyer argued for bail on the grounds of his long-standing career in education, the court rejected this argument, stating that his behaviour displayed a lack of respect for the teaching profession and the student-teacher relationship.
Justice Sharma stressed the severity of the offense due to the exploitation of a minor in a position of trust.
”Needless to say, the parents send their children, whether daughters or sons, to tuition centres on the trust and faith that their teachers will take care of them. In the present case, the exploitation of the minor victim by a teacher, taking advantage of her tender age, has made the offence graver and serious,” the court said.
It also highlighted the victim’s trauma and her eventual disclosure of the incidents to a woman teacher who educated her about inappropriate touching and informed her mother.
The accused, a 34-year-old man who resided in the same building as the victim, allegedly molested her in March 2021, using his position as her tutor. The prosecution further claimed that he repeated these actions and threatened the victim to remain silent, under the guise of harming her future if she spoke out.
The victim eventually confided in a woman teacher in September 2021, leading to the registration of a case against the accused. Despite the accused’s plea that the allegations were false, the court concluded that his actions, given the victim’s young age and his breach of trust, warranted denial of bail.
The court said that “considering the object and intent of the act, the tender age of the victim, the conduct of the applicant of indulging in outraging the modesty of victim child, indulging in sexual conversations, taking advantage of the relationship of being a teacher and being 22 years elder to her as well as taking advantage of ignorance of the child about good touch and bad touch, not only violated the body of the victim child but also disregarded the sanctity of his relationship with the minor child of being his teacher”.
