Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Sajan Kurien Mathew vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11619
1 MCRC-18764-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 5 th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18764 of 2025
DR.SAJAN KURIEN MATHEW
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Madan Mohan Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Saket Naresh Udainiya, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
Present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail under section
482 of BNSS by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Crime No. 127 of 2025 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior
for the offences punishable under sections 74,75, 79, 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. It is contended by counsel for applicant that applicant is Professor in
Man Singh Tomar Music and Arts University, Gwalior (State University) and is
almost 56 years of age. He has put in almost 20 years in teaching at the State
University. The complaint was lodged by one female student of the University that
between the period 15/1/2024 to March, 2025, on various occasions, applicant
tried to touch the said female student inappropriately, to which she objected. He
also tried to click photographs of the student but could not do so as the said
student used to object. It is contended that the applicant is a Professor and a
permanent employee of the State University. The incident is alleged to have taken
place for almost one year, but no complaint was lodged and the complaint was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11619
2 MCRC-18764-2025
lodged for the first time in April, 2025, which appears to be motivated with
ulterior intentions. No voice was raised for a long time of more than one year
during which the incident is alleged to have occurred. It is further contended that
all the offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years and the
applicant being a teacher (Professor), benefit of anticipatory bail may be accorded
to him. It is further contended that the Internal Complaints Committee in terms of
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 has been constituted in the matter and no finding has been
given by the said Committee so far and further that applicant has, in any event,
been transferred out of Gwalior and has been posted to Bhopal and considering
these facts also the benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted to the present
applicant.
3. Per contra , the application is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for
the State and by complainant on the ground that applicant has tried to malign the
holy bond between teacher and student and also that earlier also there was a case
of similar nature in the year 2019, though in that case the present applicant has
been bailed out and no final judgment has been pronounced in that case till date.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
deems it appropriate to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant,
though with stringent conditions, but without commenting anything on the merits
of the case.
5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in case, if
the applicant appears before the Investigating Officer/trial Court within fifteen
days from today and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11619
3 MCRC-18764-2025
concerned Investigating Officer/trial Court, in the event of arrest, he shall be
released on anticipatory bail. It is made clear that in case if applicant fails to
appear before the Investigating Officer/trial Court within the fifteen days from
today, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled.
6. The applicant shall further abide by following conditions :-
(1) Applicant shall make himself available for investigation as may be
directed by the officer, in-charge of investigation;
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar
nature;
(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the
evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(5) Applicant shall mark his presence on every Sunday of the week before
the Investigating Officer during the period the investigation is pending and would
not be entitled to any duty leave or travelling allowance for visiting the said police
station.
(6) Till the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) Proceedings are
completed and till police investigation in the matter is completed, the applicant
will not be posted back to the University and Authorities will be free to take
further action as per the outcome of ICC proceedings.
(7) Upon submission of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C/ 193 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant shall furnish fresh personal
bond and solvent surety of aforementioned amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court, if so directed and thereafter, shall remain present on every date of hearing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11619
4 MCRC-18764-2025
as may be directed by the concerned Court;
(8) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of
Section 309 of Cr.P.C/ 346 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding
examination of witnesses in attendance; This order shall be effective till the end of
trial. However, in case of breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the Trial
Court may consider on merit cancellation of bail without any impediment of this
order.
7. The Trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal
bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of them is
unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the conditions to the
concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
(and)
