Back
Instagram Chat Can't Be to Deny Bail: in POCSO Case
Grants Bail to Senior Citizen Tuition Teacher Amidst 18-Month FIR Delay
In a significant ruling, the has granted bail to a 68-year-old tuition teacher accused under the , holding that an Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution could not be the to deny bail. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, presiding over the , emphasized that the chat did not explicitly describe the alleged offence or state its time, place, or nature.
The Allegations and the Defence
The applicant, Sunil Sundar Gandhi, runs private tuition classes named Sunil Gandhi Classes from his residence in Mahad. The first informant, a 10th standard student, alleged that between , Gandhi locked him in the classroom during extra classes, forcibly kissed him, and without consent. The FIR was registered on —a delay of nearly 18 months.
Gandhi was arrested the following day and had been in since. Two prior bail applications—before the , and the —were rejected, prompting the present application under .
Arguments Heard
For the Applicant: Senior counsel argued that Gandhi was falsely implicated. He contended that the Instagram chat between Gandhi and his friend, appended to the , was a cooked-up document prepared after Gandhi's sister decided to take action against him. He pointed to the student's continued attendance at the tuition classes and his stellar performance—96.20% in the 10th Standard Board exams—as inconsistent with the prosecution's claim of trauma. The medical examination report showed no external injuries, and the report found no potential exhibits at the crime scene. With the investigation complete and filed, further incarceration served no purpose.
For the State and the Victim: Additional Public Prosecutor and the victim's counsel argued that the offence was . They submitted that the Instagram chat revealed the nature of the conduct, and that Gandhi, being a well-known figure in Mahad, could influence witnesses. They relied on the decision in to argue that courts must not take a liberal approach in POCSO cases, as the Act reflects a to protect children.
Scrutinising the Delay
The court took a critical view of the 18-month delay in filing the FIR. While acknowledging that delay in serious sexual offences is often of little consequence, Justice Jadhav observed that this principle is not absolute.
"Where there is a , such a delay must be scrutinised very closely."
The court found the victim's explanation—that the incident caused a fall in academic performance—unconvincing, noting the lack of incriminating material to support it.
Instagram Chat: Insufficient
The prosecution's key piece of evidence was an Instagram chat between the victim and his friend. However, the court noted that the chat did not explicitly describe the commission of the alleged offence.
"This singular chat when seen, does not explicitly describe the commission of the offence with which Applicant is charged neither does this chat state the time, place or nature of the offence. Hence in my opinion this cannot be the for considering denying bail to Applicant."
The court also observed that only two batchmates of the victim had been examined, and their statements did not reveal anything objectionable against Gandhi.
Medical and Forensic Evidence
The medico-legal examination report dated , recorded no external injuries, and the report found no potential exhibits at the crime scene. The court noted that this evidence supported Gandhi's defence of innocence at the stage.
The Verdict
Considering the completed investigation, the absence of prior antecedents, and Gandhi's documented credentials as a teacher, the court concluded that further was unwarranted. Bail was granted on a of ₹25,000 with one or two in the like amount, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the investigating officer for the first six months, no contact with the victim or witnesses, and cooperation with the trial.
Justice Jadhav clarified that the observations were limited to the and did not reflect on the . The court also directed the to pay the fees of the advocate appointed for the victim.
This ruling reinforces the principle that in bail matters, especially under POCSO, courts must carefully weigh the quality of evidence and the circumstances surrounding the FIR, ensuring that delay and are not glossed over.
