JUDGMENT :

1. The applicant, by way of this application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11186001220465 of 2022 registered with Girgadhda Police Station, Gir-Somnath, for the offences punishable under Section 354A of IPC and under sections 10 and 18 of POCSO Act.

2. Heard learned Mr. A.J. Yagnik for the applicant and Ms. C. M. Shah, learned APP assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Param Buch for the respondents.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of present application are that:

3.1 That on 08.07.2022 at around 10:30 am in the morning the daughter of complainant went to school and when she came back home in the evening and started crying and informed her mother that she will not attend the school because today, when she was alone in the classroom during recess time, one of her teachers i.e. accused- Nihar Barad asked her and her classmate viz. Vidhya to decorate the school. Thereafter, the accused asked Vidhya to go outside for some work and took out a knife and held the victim and moved his hands inappropriately on private parts of the victim and thereafter the victim ran away from the room. On the next day morning, the informant went to the school to make such complaint to the principal of the school, wherein they found that the accused involves in such kind of molestation with other girls also. Therefore, the FIR came to be lodged with Girgadhada Police Station for the commission of aforesaid offences.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has not committed any of offence as alleged or otherwise and the applicant is falsely implicated in the present FIR. He further submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report are incorrect and the FIR was lodged after delay of 13 days. He also submitted that the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law which is filed for the motive of extracting money from the applicant. He also submitted that the allegations of the FIR are concocted, untrue and alleged only to disrepute the applicant. He further submitted that even the police authorities have not received any affirmative evidences in the charge-sheet like FSL report. The Investigating Officer did not seize clothes of victim as well as accused also and thus, the police authority only on the basis of statement of complainant has registered the FIR without carrying out any preliminary inquiry into the matter. He submitted that there is a huge contradiction between the statements of the complainant, victim herself and Vidhyaben, who is one of the classmate of victim and teacher Bharatbhai Umiyashankar. He also submitted that Principal Shantilal Ranabhai Nandoda very specifically stated in their statement that accused Nihar is working since last 4 years in their school, there is no written and oral complaint received against accused regarding such kind of misbehavior and misconduct. He also submitted that the police have already filed the charge-sheet and there is no medical evidence to prove that the victims subjected to sexual assault. Therefore, there is no case made out against the applicant under section 354A of the IPC and hence, he has requested to release the applicant on bail.

5. Opposing the bail application, learned APP for the State contended that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove his involvement in the alleged offence. She strongly opposes the bail application looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. In such circumstances, considering the seriousness of the offence and manner in which he executed the alleged offence, no case is made out for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant.

6. It appears from the FIR as well as the charge-sheet papers that the daughter of complainant went to school and when she came back home in the evening and started crying and informed her mother that she will not attend the school because today, when