New Delhi: A special POCSO Court in Mumbai granted bail to a 40-year-old school teacher, 3 weeks after her arrest for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old class XII male student on multiple occasions, on the grounds that the accused and the minor boy had a “consensual” physical relationship.
Justice Sabina A. Malik, presiding over the Special Court for POCSO, granted bail to the former school teacher on 22 July, despite the victim opposing the her plea for bail. The prosecution has booked the teacher under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS Act), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act.
The eight-page order delved into the police allegations and defence arguments. While the teacher’s counsel argued the relationship was consensual, the boy’s advocate claimed he was under the influence of the woman who even administered anti-depressants and anti-anxiety tablets to the boy.
However, the trial court concluded that the evidence on record “showed” the two were in a “consensual relation”.
Furthermore, since the accused had already resigned from the school, the teacher-student relationship no longer existed, thereby reducing any undue influence. Moreover, the judge felt that since the trial “will take time to commence” nothing “fruitful would be gained” by keeping the teacher in jail.
Also read: SC convicted POCSO accused, then set him free—it factored in lived realities & systemic failures
How the relationship started
According to the FIR, registered in June 2025 at the behest of the 17-year-old boy, the victim grew close to the teacher in October 2023 while he was participating in a school play. During that time, the FIR alleged, the teacher called him over to her house on the pretext of discussing the play. On another occasion, she took him out for a drive in her car. During both meetings, the boy has claimed in the FIR, the teacher tried to have sex with him.
The FIR also provides details of more such encounters, including one in January 2024, when the teacher forced the boy to consume alcohol and have sex with him. The teacher also introduced the boy to her friend, who too forced the boy to have sex with the woman.
Further ‘non-consensual’ physical relations were alleged to have occurred on February 6, 2024, March 2024, and February 2025, at various locations.
Both Kumar and the co-accused (Kumar’s friend) allegedly issued threats to the boy, who reported these incidents to his parents this year and subsequently filed a complaint with the Dadar police station.
The teacher’s arguments for bail
Kumar, who was arrested on June 29, 2025, and has been in judicial custody since July 3, 2025, argued that the FIR lodged against her is “false, fabricated and motivated” and called the investigation biased and selectively conducted.
She contended that the informant was in love with her, citing evidence such as a tattoo of her name, email correspondence, WhatsApp messages, handwritten notes, and gifts as clear demonstrations of his “overwhelming desire and love”.
She denied “exploitation” or “abuse” of the boy and sought bail on the ground that the POCSO Act should not criminalise consensual relationships.
She told the court she quit her job in the school where the boy studied in April 2024 with the intention to avoid his attentions. In fact, she said, she had messaged the boy telling him she would meet him only with his mother’s permission.
She claimed the FIR was motivated by the boy’s parents, who did so to end their son’s relationship with her before he became a major and could not be stopped from being with her.
She alleged that the grounds for arrest provided to her were in Marathi, a language she does not know, and were not translated for her. She was simply made to sign the documents, which, she argued violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution—which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds for arrest.
Furthermore, while her husband was intimated of her arrest, he was not provided a copy of the grounds for arrest.
The defence also pointed out that one of the stated grounds for her arrest was a confession made during interrogation, which is “inadmissible in law”. Despite being labeled a “teacher of the school” in the complaint, Kumar stated she had resigned in April 2024 and is currently a content writer.
She also highlighted her clean record as a teacher in other schools with no prior complaints and no criminal antecedents. Crucially, she said, she is the mother of 11-year-old twins, one of whom suffers from an asthmatic condition (medical papers were submitted). Her children’s schooling and emotional well-being are reportedly suffering due to her absence.
The charges in the case
The Court noted that the victim is 17-years-old and acknowledged that the sections invoked under BNS, POCSO Act, 2012 and the juvenile Justice Act of 2015 carry a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life.
The charges against the 40-year-old teacher under the BNS, 2023, are of criminal intimidation (Section 351 (2)) and causing hurt with means of poison etc., with the intent to commit an offence (Section 123).
Under the POCSO Act, 2012, she has been charged with penetrative sexual assault (section 4), aggravated sexual assault (Section 6) and abetment of an offence (Section 17).
Furthermore, under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, she is charged with the penalty for giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child.
The 17 year-old’s opposition to bail
The prosecution resisted the bail application, arguing that the co-accused has not yet been found, and if granted bail, Kumar might abscond, not be available for trial, and tamper with evidence. They also stated that the informant is suffering “mental trauma due to alleged incidents”.
The victim also filed a separate reply, submitting that if Kumar was released, she would “once again find ways to manipulate or intimidate, threaten and harm his life” and would “tamper with the evidence”.
Court’s rationale for granting bail
In the order, the special POCSO Court found several factors favouring bail. It stated that “from the record, there is evidence from both the sides showing that there was a consensual relation”. As the accused had resigned from the school, the “relationship of a teacher and student no more existed and hence, the allegation of influence is diluted”.
The court specifically mentioned “the improper compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS Act,” which relates to the procedural issues raised by the applicant regarding the grounds for arrest.
The court concluded that any potential risk to the victim could be addressed by imposing “necessary terms and conditions” and “stringent conditions” on the applicant.
The court directed Kumar to pay Rs 50,000. She is strictly prohibited from tampering with the evidence and meeting, contacting, or threatening the victim in any manner. She also cannot directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any witness or the victim. She cannot leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai without the court’s permission. The court explicitly stated that breach of any condition will result in the immediate cancellation of bail.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)