HC grants pre-arrest bail to principal convicted of ‘casteist’ remarks against teacher


Granting early bail to a school principal convicted of allegedly hurling caste abuse at a teacher, the Bombay High Court recently expressed dissatisfaction with the plaintiff’s act of putting up a banner demanding the director’s arrest. The court observed that due to a performance-related issue, the teacher was censured by the said school and the plaintiff could not seek “out-of-court remedies” to pressure the prosecution and that the parties had to refrain from such acts to enable him to do his duty. according to the law. A vacation bench of Judge Milind N Jadhav on May 27 passed an order in a criminal appeal of Lekha Visaria, director of Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya, Kurla, apprehending the arrest of a registered FIR at the police station of Nehru Nagar for offenses punishable under Scheduled and Scheduled Castes. Tribes (Atrocity Prevention) Act. According to the FIR filed by the teacher, in 2021, several errors were found in the class 10 students’ grade sheets and Visaria had requested an explanation from all teachers and asked them to give letters of apology. On August 15 last year, the appellant allegedly berated some teachers for not submitting letters of apology and insulted the complainant by saying that she was not fit to teach English. It is further alleged that on October 5 last year, the plaintiff was arrested by Visaria for failing to deliver a letter of apology. The principal allegedly said that the complainant was of a lower caste and therefore only suitable to teach in the lower grades and not 9 or 10. Later that month a note was sent to the complainant, informing him that his explanation was not satisfactory and further errors on his part will not be tolerated. She was transferred to teach in classes 5 and 6. Injured, she filed a complaint on December 23 and the FIR was registered on February 9. Bhuta, Ankita Bamboli and Sagar Shahani, arguing for the appellant, said there was no personal animosity with the complainant and no reference to her caste and a conscious decision was made based on her performance, which irritated him. The lawyers said the questioning of the main appellant was not necessary because she voluntarily cooperated with the investigation and will continue in the same way. After reviewing the documents on file, the bench noted that there was “a substantial delay in the filing of the report as well as the FIR” and that there were “no specific caste remarks attributable to the Complainant at the subject of his caste”. Referring to the banner unfurled by the plaintiff in a public place, Judge Jadhav noted: “This informant approach would certainly emanate from the thought of seeking revenge against the appellant. The parties must refrain from such acts and allow the public prosecutor to do his duty in accordance with the law. The appellant argued in favor of the granting of an advance bond. »


Leave a Comment