Recently, the Orissa High Court granted bail to a school principal accused of suppressing a sexual harassment complaint made by a student against a mathematics lecturer, holding that the alleged offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act is bailable in nature. The Court emphasized that “denial of bail in a bailable offence amounts to deprivation of personal liberty and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an incident at Swami Arupananda Higher Secondary School of Education & Technology, where a student accused a mathematics lecturer of sexual harassment. The victim reportedly lodged a written complaint before the Principal, who, instead of informing higher authorities or the police, allegedly suppressed the matter despite the lecturer admitting his misconduct.
Subsequently, the victim approached the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur, through a general grievance complaint. Acting upon it, the Sub-Collector sought a report from the Principal and later filed an FIR, leading to registration of a case under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Principal initially sought anticipatory bail, which was declined, with a direction to surrender and apply for regular bail. Upon rejection of his bail plea by the Special Court, he approached the High Court seeking post-arrest bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the alleged offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act carries a maximum punishment of one year, making it bailable. It was contended that the trial court erred in treating the offence as non-bailable and remanding the petitioner to custody. The defence urged the High Court to exercise its discretion and grant bail, submitting that the Principal’s alleged omission, failure to report the incident, did not amount to a grave or non-bailable offence.
Observations of the Court:
Justice G. Satapathy, first examined whether the offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act is bailable. The Court noted that while the POCSO Act defines offences and prescribes punishments, it does not classify them as bailable or non-bailable. Referring to Table II of the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court observed that offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only are non-cognizable and bailable.
Relying on the Apex Court’s decision in Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court clarified that if the maximum punishment prescribed is three years or less, the offence must be treated as bailable.
In this context, the Court held that Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, providing for imprisonment up to one year and fine, squarely falls within the category of a bailable offence. The Court observed, “From the materials placed on record, the culpability of the petitioner being for commission of offence only under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, which provides for maximum imprisonment of one year and with fine, the learned Special Court should not have remanded the accused petitioner to custody by refusing bail to him… Denial of bail to an accused involved in commission of bailable offence is deprivation of personal liberty and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further noted with concern that the Special Court failed to take note of the limited nature of allegations and mechanically remanded the petitioner to custody in gross violation of Article 21.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the bail application, the High Court quashed the order of the Special Court and directed the petitioner’s immediate release on bail. The Court also directed the Registrar General to circulate the judgment to all Special Courts dealing with POCSO cases for guidance, ensuring that bail applications in bailable offences are not erroneously rejected in the future.
The Court concluded by instructing that the petitioner’s release should not be delayed, even if the concerned court is closed for holidays, emphasizing the constitutional right to liberty in bailable offences.
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa
Case No.: BLAPL NO.10425 of 2025
Coram: Justice G. Satapathy
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. S.C.Mohapatra (Sr.Advocate), S.Mohapatra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. C. Mohanty
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
