2025:CGHC:13743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 651 of 2021 1 - Smt. Purnima Gayakwad W/o Sandeep Gayakwad Aged About 42 Years R/o Bangali- para, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Punjipathra, Dis- trict- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Alka Godbole W/o Vivek Narayan Aged About 51 Years Principal Of O.P. Jindal School, Nalwa, Police Station Pujipathra, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel lawyer For Respondent no. 2 : Mrs. Priyanka Rai, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh where the concerned court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2 against the crime no. 152 of 2021 registered at Police Station Punjipathra, district Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are such at on 18.05.2021 the petitioner who is the mother of the victim lodged an FIR against the respondent no. 2 (principal of the school in which the victim is a student) for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by alleging that her daughter(victim) is a student of Class 6th of the O.P. Jundal School Nalwa, of which respondent no. 2 is the Principal. On 31.08.2019 while checking the bag of the victim, respondent no. 2 found a mobile phone upon which respondent no. 2 assaulted her daughter due to which the ear drum of her daughter was broken and thereafter she is not able to listen properly. It is also alleged that after that incident her daughter turned abnormal and has refrained herself from attending the school. On getting treated it was found that the ear drum of her daughter has been broken and due to which she is not able to hear properly and is under shock as she is aged only 11 year and is under the threat of respondent no. 2. Further facts of the case are such that after lodging of FIR against the respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh on 26th of May, 2021(Annexure A/1), which was allowed and the respondent no. 2 was granted bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits that learned trial court has ought to have considered the impact of grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2 and the nature of injury found on the victim who is a girl aged about 11 years. Hence he prays this court to set- aside the order dated 24.05.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the mother of the victim who is the complainant is the teacher of that particular school and her daughter is a student in which the respondent no. 2 is the principal of the same school. The complainant was having some kind of grievances from the respondent no. 2 and even the FIR against the respondent no. 2 was lodged after a lapse of one year nine month. Hence the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the anticipatory bail order with utmost circumspection. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is pertinent to mention here that it is an indisputable fact that the respondent no. 2 is the principal of the school in which the victim is a student of sixth standard and the mother of the victim is the teacher. The dispute took place when a mobile phone recovered from the bag of the victim. It is also evident that the mother of the victim who was supposed to be the teacher in the said school was terminated from her services. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged after a lapse of one year and nine month. Moreover this fact has also came up that the victim had also received some earlier injury. 8. This court also finds that the mother of the victim who is the complainant was terminated from her services and this could be the reason that the case has been cooked up by her against the respondent no. 2 in order to take some revenge. Even the delay of one year and nine month in lodging the FIR could not be ascertained by this Court. 9. The concerned court has looked upon the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has granted bail to the respondent no. 2. There is no supervening circumstances made by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order of anticipatory bail. 10. Therefore, this court finds that the present petition is not a fit petition to allow and cancel the anticipatory bail of the respondent no. 2 granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on merits. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza