The Delhi High Court has overturned a trial court order that granted bail to a school caretaker accused of sexually assaulting a three-year-old student at a Janakpuri school, holding that critical aspects of the case were ignored while the investigation was still underway.
Justice Vinod Kumar observed that the lower court failed to adequately consider the young victim’s statements before releasing the accused just days after his arrest. Stressing the seriousness of the allegations, the Court said the investigation was still at a crucial stage and that the child’s account deserved careful weight.
Questioning the rationale behind the earlier bail order, the Court noted that there was no apparent reason for a three-year-old child to falsely accuse a specific individual, identify him as the alleged offender, and point investigators to the location where the incident was said to have taken place. Invoking powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Court set aside the bail order in the interest of justice.
The accused has been directed to surrender before the authorities on July 1 at 2 p.m.
According to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on April 30, when the child had attended school for only the second time. After returning home, she reportedly complained of intense pain and later told her mother that an older male staff member had taken her downstairs and inserted a finger into her private part.
Investigators said the child later identified the school caretaker as the alleged perpetrator and also pointed out the basement room where the assault was alleged to have occurred.
The trial court had earlier granted bail after noting that CCTV footage showed the accused leaving the junior wing of the school around 8:37 a.m., that the medical examination did not reveal visible injuries, and that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The Delhi Police and the child’s family challenged that decision before the High Court, arguing that the gravity of the allegations and the evidence gathered during the investigation had not been properly assessed.
While acknowledging that appellate courts generally exercise restraint in interfering with bail orders, the High Court observed that such intervention becomes necessary when a lower court overlooks significant factors in cases involving serious offences. On that basis, the Court cancelled the bail and restored the accused to custody pending further proceedings.
