The court established that a teacher's conduct towards a student must align with ethical standards, reinforcing that misconduct under authority is unacceptable.

ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-11199012250016 of 2025 registered with Bharuch City B Division Police Station, Bharuch.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned advocate for the Original Complainant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Original Complainant.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. R. Abhichandani appearing for the applicant. He submitted that in the present offence investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 14.01.2025 and since then he is in custody. He further submitted that the applicant is aged about 46 years and was serving as a teacher in the school where the prosecutrix who was aged below 18 years at the relevant time was studying. The act alleged against the present applicant in the present FIR is not anything less then immoral. Learned advocate has taken this Court through the Whatsapp chat which has taken place between the applicant and the prosecutrix. On the basis of those chats, he submitted that it was the prosecutrix who has instigated the present applicant of the relationship in question and therefore it goes without saying that it was with the consent on the part of the prosecutrix for the said relations. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that there was a huge age gap between the applicant and the prosecutrix. The formal relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix were of a teacher and a student and being the teacher of the prosecutrix, the applicant had indulged into the act alleged against him in the FIR. He further submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has categorically stated that the applicant herein had followed her when she had gone to her classroom to fetch her bag. The applicant had threatened her that he would tarnish her image. The applicant was making sexual demands from her. The applicant had also once touched her private part. Having regard to the aforesaid statement made by the prosecutrix, the offense alleged against the present applicant is clearly made out. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the present application. He submitted that the present applicant happened to be the teacher of the prosecutrix and being in the relationship with the prosecutrix as a teacher, it was not expected of the applicant that he should contact the prosecutrix and have chats with her which are not befitting to their relationship of a teacher and the student. The applicant hearin was in a commanding position over the prosecutrix and therefore, as per the statute also the offense alleged against the present applicant has been clearly made out. He further submitted that the trial of the offense has already commenced and charge has also been framed against the applicant. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. At the outset it is required to be noted that the