MUMBAI: A special POCSO court has granted bail to a 40-year-old former teacher of a prominent Mumbai school who was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a male student. In its detailed order, the court noted evidence suggesting that the relationship between the two later became consensual and that the victim was over 17 years old at the time.
Special Judge Sabina A Malik observed that the teacher had already resigned from the school, which effectively ended the teacher-student dynamic and lessened any power imbalance. “As the accused resigned from the school, the relationship of teacher and student no longer existed, and hence, the influence is diluted,” the judge said. She also noted that the trial would take time to begin and that keeping the accused in custody in the meantime would not serve any significant purpose.
While the victim opposed the bail plea, expressing concern that the accused might manipulate, intimidate, or harm him, the court held that such risks could be mitigated through strict bail conditions. “The apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions on the applicant,” the judge said.
As part of the bail order, the court prohibited the accused from contacting or approaching the victim directly or indirectly. She was also barred from influencing, threatening, or making any promises to the victim or potential witnesses. The judge warned that any violation of these terms would lead to immediate cancellation of her bail.
The woman, who was arrested on June 29, had resigned from her teaching position last year and is currently employed in a different field. The charges she faces carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of one’s natural life.
The prosecution opposed the bail citing the psychological trauma suffered by the minor. However, the defense, represented by advocates Neeraj Yadav and Deepa Punjani, argued that the case was “false, fabricated, and motivated.” They also raised procedural concerns, claiming that the grounds for arrest were provided only in Marathi — a language the accused does not understand — and were not translated for her. As a result, she allegedly signed the documents without fully understanding them, which the defense argued was a violation of her constitutional rights.
