X v. Satbir

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 11160 of 2026) XXXXXX ABC ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATBIR AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. Respondent no. 1 was posted as an English Teacher in the “XXX” School. Pursuant to a written complaint lodged by the appellant , the father of the victim on 23rd July, 2025, FIR No. 40 of 2025 came to be registered at the Women Police Station, Kaithal, for offences punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that respondent no. 1 had molested and sexually harassed the appellant’s minor 2 daughter, aged 14 years, who was studying in 10th Grade in the said school. 4. During the course of investigation, it came to light that respondent no. 1, in order to destroy the evidence of his complicity in the crime, removed the DVR of the CCTV camera installed in the school without permission. A complaint to this effect was lodged by the Principal of the School before the In - Charge of Police Post, Sangatpura, Kaithal on 23 rd July, 2025. 5. Respondent no. 1, apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, approached the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, who rejected the said application by order dated 22nd August, 2025. 6. Being aggrieved, respondent no. 1 approached the High Court by way of an application under Section 4 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail . By order dated 1 st September, 2025, the High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to respondent no. 1, directing him to join the investigation. 7. While on interim anticipatory bail, respondent no. 1 is stated to have accessed and operated the computer of the school clerk without authorisation. 3 It is further alleged that he subsequently made telephonic communications to the victim. In this regard, complaints dated 3rd and 5th September, 2025 were submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. 8. On 10 th September, 2025, upon joining the investigation, respondent no. 1 is stated to have made a disclosure statement, wherein he admitted to acts of sexual assault and threats against the victim. The status report dated 16 th October 2025, filed by the State before the High Court, further referred to CCTV footage recovered from a pen drive, which purportedly showed the victim coming out of the Language Lab, followed shortly thereafter by respondent no. 1 emerging from the same room. 9. The High Court , however, by the impugned order dated 23 rd January, 2026 made the interim order of anticipatory bail absolute . The said order is subjected to challenge in th e present appeal with special leave. 10. During the course of submissions, learned counsel representing respondent no. 1 pointed out that pursuant to the grant of pre -arrest bail to him, respondent no. 1 has been released on regular bail by 4 the trial Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2026 upon accepting his bail bonds. 11. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 12. Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against respondent no. 1 and more particularly, the fact that respondent no. 1, while working as a Teacher in a School, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a student and thereafter attempted to tamper with evidence and intimidate the victim during the pendency of investigation , in our opinion, it was not a fit case warranting grant of pre- arrest bail to respondent no. 1. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained. 13. We are of the opinion that respondent no. 1 has been released on regular bail only in compliance of order of pre -arrest bail granted to him by the High Court and hence, the said development is of no consequence. Since the order of pre -arrest bail is itself being set aside, the automatic consequence thereof would be the cancellation of regular bail and the bail bonds furnished by respondent no. 1. 14. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent no. 1 shall surrender before the trial 5 Court within a period of two weeks from today and shall thereafter be at liberty to apply afresh for regular bail, which application shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. 15. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………..….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH) …………….….……………………J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) ……………....…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 01, 2026.