The Bombay High Court denied bail to a municipal school teacher for sexually harassing and assaulting a minor repeatedly since 2014.
Justice PD Naik was hearing the bail application filed by Nihal Ahmed Abdul Majid Ansari.
On April 13, 2019, Ansari, 56, went to the 16-year-old girl’s school and asked for her school leaving certificate. The school authorities refused to give him the certificate as he was not known to them.
A teacher however got suspicious and inquired from the girl about Ansari.
The girl told the teacher that Ansari has been molesting and subjecting her to sexual assault since 2014 and has also been showing her indecent videos.
Following a complaint by the school principal, an FIR was registered against Ansari under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354(B) (whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act), 354(D) (stalking), 376 (rape) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence of IPC) along with Sections 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault), 8 (punishment for sexual assault), 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault), 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) and 14 (punishment for using child for pornographic purposes of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).)
He was arrested on April 29, 2019 and his bail was rejected by a special POCSO court on November 7, 2019. Subsequently he moved the High Court.
Justice Naik recorded, “The medical evidence supports the prosecution case. The history provided by the victim girl refers to the overt act attributed to the applicant [Ansari]. The victim was examined and the observations made by the medical officer which are reflected in the examination report indicate that overall finding is consistent with old sexual intercourse/assault.”
The court rejected Ansari’s bail and said, “The other observations reflected in the medical report are corroborative to the version of the victim. It is true that the victim was subjected to sexual assault from 2014. It is true that the victim was subjected to sexual assault from 2014. However, the circumstances in the present case are required to be considered. The victim was small girl at the time of incident. She was allegedly continuously sexually assaulted by applicant.”
