Point of law : POCSO Act - Depravity of the act alleged against the petitioner, more so, when the petitioner is revered not only as a godman, but also as a teacher, is of such a magnitude, that the collective conscience in which the society would view such an act should be the yardstick to assess its gravity. POCSO Act has been invoked against the petitioner, which means that the act has been perpetrated against young children, who were left at the divine abode for the purpose of gaining spiritual and intellectual salvation, but only to be pestered with the alleged ever groping alleged sexual attacks of the petitioner, which has had a telling effect, both physically and psychologically on the minds of the tender kids. In such a background of facts, entertaining the prayer of the petitioner would not be in the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail arrested by DSP, CB-CID, OCU-II, Chennai Police Station in Crime Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021.)

1. The petitioner stands implicated for the offences u/s 354, 363, 365, 366 r/w 109 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 8, 10, 12 r/w 17 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respective defacto complainants in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, under the guise of a spiritual head, running a school under the name and style of “Sushil Hari International Residential School”, had behaved in an inappropriate manner with the girl students studying in the school. Based on the complaint lodged by a respective victims, who have alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with the one of the victim in the year 2015 and with the other victim later in point of time, the criminal machinery was set in motion by the registration of the case against the petitioner.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner was arrested on 13.6.16 at New Dehil and on the basis of the Transit Warrant, the petitioner was brought over to Chennai and remanded to judicial custody and is lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. It is the further case of the prosecution that in all, three complaints have been filed against the petitioner leading to registration of three cases against the petitioner for the offences supra.

4. Mr.Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the whole fabric, on which the case is woven by the prosecution, smacks with mala fide intent, as there is no probable and plausible material implicating the petitioner with the commission of any of the offence, except for the delayed complaint by the complainants. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the complaint, leading to the registration of Crime No.1/2021 clearly reveals that the act alleged against the petitioner is said to have taken place on 18.12.2015, but the complainant has kept silent all along and only now, after a lapse of six years, on 12.6.21, has come out to lodge the present complaint. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that though the complainant has stated that the adverse nature and publicity was the factor, which desisted her from lodging the complaint at the first instance, even when she was 15 years of age, however, at the age of 21 years, when it is more detrimental, the complainant has come out and lodged the complaint, which falls foul. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that apart from the direct perverted attack, alleged by the complainant, by the petitioner on her, all the other allegations are mere hearsay and cannot be the basis for implicating the petitioner in the offence. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the complainant, that on her own accord, the complainant had accepted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in December, 2015, yet she has been continually performing her dance programmes in the said school run by the petitioner more than a few dozen times after the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner with the complainant.

5. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that even in the year 2019 after the complainant had performed her dance programme, she had given an interview, which is in the public domain, in which she had not whispered any misbehaviour of the petitioner; rather she has spoken high of the petitioner and also of the very many talents, which she had developed while studying in the school run by the petitioner. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint alleged to have be