Mumbai: In a major order, a 40 -year -old teacher from a major Mumbai school was arrested for alleged sexual harassment of a male student to grant bail, a special POCSO court said that there was evidence from the two sides that later had a consent relationship between them. Noticeing the victim was over 17 years of age, special judge Sabina A. Malik said, “As the accused resigned from the school, a teacher and student’s relationship was no longer in existence and therefore, the effect is thin.” The judge further mentioned that it would take time for the trial to start and in the meantime, nothing would be fruitful by placing the accused behind bars.The victim opposed the argument of bail, presenting that if the woman is released on bail, she would once again find ways to manipulate, intimidate, threaten and damage her life, and she would also tamper with the evidence. However, the judge said, “The potential risk to the victim, if any, can be met by implementing the required terms and conditions. The prosecution’s apprehension can be taken care of by implementing strict conditions on the applicant (accused),” the judge said.Applying conditions on release, the judge said that the accused should not meet, contact or threaten the victim in any way. He is forbidden to directly or indirectly induce anything directly or indirectly for any witness or victim. The judge said that violation of any of these conditions would immediately cancel the bail.The maximum punishment in the case is imprisonment for the remaining of that person’s natural life. Last year, the woman who resigned from the school was arrested on 29 June. She said that she is now working in a separate ground. The prosecution also opposed the bail, which mentioned the mental trauma victim by the minor.Demanding bail, the woman’s defense lawyers, Neeraj Yadav and Deepa Panjani said the case against her is “false and coined and motivated.” It was also presented that her grounds were fully provided in Marathi for arrest, a language that she does not understand. He alleged that the plains were never translated to him and he was directed to signed them only, which failed to satisfy the mandate of the Constitution.
