Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"#" $%&& '( '( '( '( &&&&
"
" $ ) *#& ( ( ( ( &&& #+ $, $ % % % %-'(& -'(& -'(& -'(&( ( ( ( ) # $ % )& .) $("$/010 ) 2,3 !
)+
"
" $ )& )& +4 ("$/0225$4 6& 2& 2& 2& 2& 1.
Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 482 of 0 )
"7 / )"8(5) 8#0 ( $0"
2 9 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.14 dated 29.01.2025 under Sections 354-A, 354-D and 509 of IPC and Section 11 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (Amended), 2012, 2019 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. 2.
Facts of the case are, complaint was received from Child Protection Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib against Campus Manager Pal Singh for taking action against him for sexual harassment. As per facts narrated by victim on 06.04.2024, Campus Manager Pal Singh took the victim to Government Senior Secondary School, Rupana on the pretext of her admission. On the way, he talked to the victim in vulgar and obscene manner
and passed sexual coloured remarks. On return the girl intimated this incident to her parents. On 10.04.2024 a complaint was filed against him by the girl and her parents. Principal approached District Education Officer Sri Muktsar Sahib who suggested to take action at his own level. Father of the girl filed another application at Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Pal Singh was called who allegedly admitted his mistake. Finally services of Campus Manager Pal Singh were terminated w.e.f. 26.09.2024. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner argued that all allegations levelled against petitioner are false. In-fact, petitioner was raising issues of corruption in the school and because of that rivalry he is falsely implicated in this case. Counsel for petitioner referred to the complaints filed by petitioner to Education Minister, Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bathinda, Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi, and D.P.I., Chandigarh which are Annexure P-2. There is long delay in lodging the FIR. His anticipatory bail application was wrongly declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-3). No recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join the investigation. Therefore, his anticipatory bail application may be allowed.
4.
Bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing State. Status report has been filed confirming the facts detailed in the FIR. It is pointed out that detailed inquiry was conducted and the allegations against petitioner were found to be correct. Statement of the victim is annexed as Annexure R-1, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 20.03.2025. Petitioner is absconding. He is yet to join the
9 investigation. Therefore, his anticipatory bail application may be declined. 5.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Present petitioner was serving as Campus Manager in the school. There are specific serious allegations against him that he took the minor girl for her admission in Government Senior Secondary School, Rupana and on the way he indulged in vulgar obscene talk and passed inappropriate remarks. So far as, complaints filed by him to different authorities (Annexure P-2) are concerned, those are filed after the alleged occurrence dated 06.04.2024. It cannot be ignored that petitioner while posted in the school allegedly misbehaved with the minor girl studying in the same school. Allegations are specific and serious. Considering the aforesaid factual position, I do not find it appropriate to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the same is, accordingly, declined. :& $,"$/."#!
;;
$ 5# ++;"!
" $<#=2" $72#
$,,"#+ # ,
!! ),"$/;7 #> ;;& < = < = < = < = && && && && #$, ?0
)#+
8"$/@)
# $ , % #@ & ?0
)) + )
6;
% #@