Denial of bail for a bailable offence violates personal liberty protected under Article 21, affirming the fundamental right to bail.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Raghunathpur PS Case No.155 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. GR Case No.74 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”), Jagatsinghpur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.74 of BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA , 2023 (in short “the BNS”) r/w Sections 12 /21(2) of POCSO Act.

2. The facts as emerged out from the record are that the petitioner was the Principal of Swami Arupananda Higher Secondary School of Education & Technology, Kurtanga and the victim girl was a student of that school at the relevant time of occurrence in which the victim girl was subjected to sexual harassment and misbehavior by the accused Math Lecturer namely, Saswat Kumar Mohanty and on 15.01.2025, the victim girl had accordingly lodged one complaint before the petitioner about the misbehavior and harassment to her by the accused Math Lecturer Saswat Kumar Mohanty, but the petitioner being the Principal of the College suppressed the matter in nexus with co-accused Math Lecturer despite co-accused Math Lecturer admitting his mistake and confessing his guilt for the misbehavior and sexual harassment towards the victim girl as per report of the petitioner. Even thereafter, the petitioner neither reported to the President of the Governing Body nor to the higher authorities which prompted the victim to make complaint before the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur in Jana Sunani (General Grievance) and thereafter, the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur called for a report from the present petitioner. On this fact, the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur lodged a FIR before the IIC, Jagatsinghpur which paved the way for registration of Jagatsinghpur Zero FIR No. 07 dated 22.07.2025.

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in ABLAPL No. 9129 of 2025 & co-accused in ABLAPL No. 9395 of 2025, but this Court while not being inclined to entertain ABLAPL No. 9129 of 2025 passed an order directing the petitioner to surrender before the Court in seisin over the case and move an application for his release on bail and in that event, the said bail application of the petitioner was directed to be considered on its own merit on the same day. Accordingly, the present petitioner unsuccessfully approached the Court in seisin over the matter and thereby, the petitioner landing before this Court for grant of post-arrest bail.

3. Heard, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

3.1. The only ground that is canvassed by the petitioner through his learned Senior Counsel at this stage is that the offence alleged against him U/S. 21(2) of the POCSO Act being bailable in nature in view of the maximum punishment provided therein for one year, he should have been granted bail by the Court in seisin over the matter and he having not granted bail, this Court may kindly indulge its discretion to grant bail to him.

4. After having considered the rival submission, this Court before dwelling upon the bail application of the petitioner on merit considers it proper to address the core issue raised by the petitioner as to whether the offence as alleged against him is bailable in nature or not?. In addressing such issue, it appears that the POCSO Act although is a self contained Act with r