Seriousness of Allegations Alone Cannot Justify Prolonged Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Principal Booked Under POCSO

"The appellant has been in custody for almost ten months even though the complaints against him are false and frivolous" – Supreme Court of India set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order denying bail and directed the release of a school principal accused under grave provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Observing that continued incarceration without significant trial progress amounts to denial of constitutional liberty, the Court remarked, “Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out.”

"Custody Cannot Continue Indefinitely When Prosecution Lags" – Supreme Court Emphasises Bail as Rule

The Supreme Court took strong note of the fact that although 22 witnesses were listed, only 7 had been examined over nearly ten months of the appellant’s detention. The accused, Anil Kumar Magre, a school principal, had been arrested following an FIR dated 10 December 2024, registered at Police Station Kawardha, Kabirdham District, on serious allegations including:

“Sections 74, 75(2), 78(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012; and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.”

Despite the severe nature of these charges, the Court ruled in favour of bail, stating that pre-trial detention is not punitive in nature and cannot be perpetuated endlessly, especially when the prosecution has failed to proceed diligently.

Rivalry in School Administration Turns Into Criminal Litigation

The appellant, formerly a teacher and later promoted as Principal, was accused by both students and staff of misconduct amounting to sexual offences and abuse of authority. The complaint was made amidst institutional rivalry, with the appellant claiming that the allegations were “fabricated by a disgruntled teacher who was denied promotion.”

The High Court of Chhattisgarh had denied him bail in MCRC No. 2054 of 2025, through an order dated 1 April 2025, finding the charges serious enough to refuse interim liberty. The appellant then approached the Apex Court under Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8168 of 2025.

Court's Analysis: Delay, Rivalry, and Fabrication Cannot Justify Further Custody

The Supreme Court was persuaded by the submissions that "allegations have seen improvements at every stage", and that the appellant had been languishing in custody without trial moving forward. The appellant argued that the complainant had “a vendetta” and that the prosecution was “inevitably prolonging” the trial.

In its order, the Court did not ignore the nature of allegations, but gave weight to procedural fairness, observing:

“Even the students as well as the teachers of the school have made allegations against him. However, the case has not progressed meaningfully and there is no incriminating material sufficient to justify further custody.”

 “Bail Subject to Conditions”

Allowing the appeal, the Court directed: “The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0751 of 2024.”

The Court also issued a stern warning: “The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record. Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.”

Right to Personal Liberty Prevails Over Delayed Prosecution

The Supreme Court has once again reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in cases under special statutes like POCSO and JJ Act, provided the prosecution fails to proceed with due urgency. The decision emphasizes that “the seriousness of an offence cannot override fundamental rights in perpetuity.”

This ruling serves as a guiding precedent for similar cases where the accused face extended pre-trial incarceration without substantial progress in judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2025