Gujarat High Court
Girirajsinh Nanbha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/835/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 835 of 2022
==========================================================
GIRIRAJSINH NANBHA JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate for the
applicant has made a prayer for
cancellation of bail granted to the
respondent no.2 who has been charged
under Sections 354A, 354D, 506 of the IPC
and Section 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Mr. Jani submits that no reason has been
assigned by the learned Sessions Judge
while granting bail after the charge-
sheet and filing of the charge-sheet has
been made a ground to release him on
bail. Mr. Jani has referred to the
R/CR.MA/835/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
judgment in the case of Nitu Kumar Vs.
Gulveer & Anr. reported in (2022) 9 SCC
222, Y. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 269 and also
judgment of this Court passed by the
Coordinate Bench in the case of Nihar
Ranjitbhai Barad Vs. State of Gujarat,
passed in Criminal Misc. Application no.
18985 of 2022 dated 30.11.2022 to submit
that the respondent was teacher of the
victim, aged about 14 years, submits that
the learned Sessions Judge very randomly
without even referring to the facts of
the case, has granted bail to the tuition
teacher who was under moral duty to
protect the students and more
specifically the girl child who is a
taught of the instructor. Mr. Jani
submits that it is not only the case of
conveying message on the mobile phone,
but the tuition teacher was
inappropriately touching the hands and
legs of the victim girl and had
threatened to defame in the society if
she spoke about the sexual harassment.
R/CR.MA/835/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
2. Mr. Rachh, learned advocate for the
respondent no.2 submits that the
punishment prescribed for the offence
under Section 354A would extend upto one
year or with fine or with both; and for
the offence under Section 354D-stalking,
the punishment prescribed for
imprisonment for 3 years with fine, since
it is the first complaint against the
accused. Mr. Rachh submits that there are
other considerations which had led to
filing of the FIR and he submits that the
learned Sessions Judge has granted bail
only after the charge-sheet was filed and
submits that the judgment in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported
in (2014) 8 SCC 273 would become
applicable and further states that
stringent conditions have been laid down
which would ensure safety of the victim
girl.
3. The only apprehension which would lie in
the mind of this Court would be the
influence of the accused as a teacher on
R/CR.MA/835/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
the victim who is a student attending the
tuition classes. In the era of
development of technology and when the
offences are committed through mobile
phones, the possibility of influencing
the minor victims would become large.
However, considering the sections invoked
against the accused and the punishment so
prescribed to the alleged offence, this
Court does not find any necessity at
present to cancel the bail of the
accused. The learned Sessions Judge has
considered filing of the charge-sheet as
a ground for granting bail, but taking
into consideration the tender age of the
victim girl over and above the conditions
laid down, it is further directed to the
accused that he shall not directly or
indirectly contact the victim girl by any
electronic means and would keep himself
away from the school premises of the
victim girl.
4. Thus, with a further condition, the
present application stands disposed of.
R/CR.MA/835/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
However, the learned Trial Court Judge
shall expedite the trial and conclude it
within reasonable time.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
