Bail plea rejected
|
By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, Jun 25 : The Special Court POCSO, Imphal West has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a school headmaster in connection with an FIR registered at Lamphel Police Station, Imphal West.
The anticipatory bail application was filed by Heisnam Jugindro Singh (60), of Keirenphabi Mayai Leikai, presently residing at Lamphel Type-III, B9 near Meitei Church.
The application was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS.
On June 9, 2026, interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner and was extended several times thereafter.
The FIR was registered on June 8 last, after a sister of a minor boy lodged a complaint with Lamphel police station.
What the complainant submits
Her brother, a Class XII student, had recently told her that the petitioner had inappropriately touched underage boys over a span of more than a decade.
On May 3, 2023, the petitioner slapped and grabbed her brother’s buttocks inappropriately on the school premises.
The victim was 13 years old at the time and did not understand the nature of the act, so he did not report it.
He also did not feel safe reporting it to school authorities.
After realizing the act was inappropriate, he narrated the incident to the complainant and said his classmates had faced similar harassment, assault, or worse.
The complainant said she heard about similar incidents from other students.
As an alumna of the school, she asked former students whether they had experienced or heard of similar conduct by the petitioner. The accounts from ex-students who faced such encounters were appalling. The assaults had left the underage children traumatized.
It is also alleged that the petitioner called boys to his cabin/office on the school premises, showed them pornographic content under the guise of sex education, made them sit on his lap, and touched them inappropriately.
Some boys who took tuition from him were made to stay overnight at his quarters in Lamphel, near Meitei Church, where such acts were also committed. It is further alleged that some students had approached the school’s Principal regarding the matter.
Anonymous letters on the issue had been sent through the school’s suggestion box for the past two years, but no action was taken by the school.
The petitioner denies allegations
The petitioner submitted that he recently learned of a misleading and disturbing allegation against him circulated in a WhatsApp group of former Class XII students of his school.
He was accused on social media of behaving inappropriately with a Grade IV student in 2015/2016.
He stated that the same allegation was circulated on Instagram and Facebook by hacking his inactive and defunct accounts.
The petitioner said he has consulted the Cyber Crime police station and will file an FIR shortly.
He expressed suspicion that the allegation may stem from infighting between Class XI and Class XII students in September/October 2025.
He stated that some students were suspended for several months in connection with the incident, and as a member of the School Committee, he had dealt with the matter.
He said he was shocked to learn of the present FIR against him.
Prosecution backs allegations
The Special PP submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are well-founded and that the investigation has uncovered many disturbing facts.
He insisted that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary.
Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the written submissions and argued that the allegation was motivated to slander him.
He submitted that the alleged incidents occurred long ago and the delay raises doubts about the genuineness of the accusation.
He added that the petitioner has had an unblemished service career spanning several decades, is due to retire next year, and cited medical documents to claim he has not been in good health.
Court ruling
After hearing the Special PP and defence counsel, the Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner appear well-founded.
There is every likelihood that the case involving the complainant’s brother was not an isolated incident, the Court added.
The Court also noted that the investigating officer commenced the investigation cautiously and did not attempt to arrest the petitioner immediately.
The Court also observed that there is a concern that the petitioner, if allowed to remain free, may hamper the investigation by influencing witnesses and misusing his position.
The medical documents filed do not clearly indicate any special medical condition at present, the Court added and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
The Court also vacated the interim relief granted earlier to the accused.
IMPHAL, Jun 25 : The Special Court POCSO, Imphal West has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a school headmaster in connection with an FIR registered at Lamphel Police Station, Imphal West.
The anticipatory bail application was filed by Heisnam Jugindro Singh (60), of Keirenphabi Mayai Leikai, presently residing at Lamphel Type-III, B9 near Meitei Church.
The application was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS.
On June 9, 2026, interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner and was extended several times thereafter.
The FIR was registered on June 8 last, after a sister of a minor boy lodged a complaint with Lamphel police station.
What the complainant submits
Her brother, a Class XII student, had recently told her that the petitioner had inappropriately touched underage boys over a span of more than a decade.
On May 3, 2023, the petitioner slapped and grabbed her brother’s buttocks inappropriately on the school premises.
The victim was 13 years old at the time and did not understand the nature of the act, so he did not report it.
He also did not feel safe reporting it to school authorities.
After realizing the act was inappropriate, he narrated the incident to the complainant and said his classmates had faced similar harassment, assault, or worse.
The complainant said she heard about similar incidents from other students.
As an alumna of the school, she asked former students whether they had experienced or heard of similar conduct by the petitioner. The accounts from ex-students who faced such encounters were appalling. The assaults had left the underage children traumatized.
It is also alleged that the petitioner called boys to his cabin/office on the school premises, showed them pornographic content under the guise of sex education, made them sit on his lap, and touched them inappropriately.
Some boys who took tuition from him were made to stay overnight at his quarters in Lamphel, near Meitei Church, where such acts were also committed. It is further alleged that some students had approached the school’s Principal regarding the matter.
Anonymous letters on the issue had been sent through the school’s suggestion box for the past two years, but no action was taken by the school.
The petitioner denies allegations
The petitioner submitted that he recently learned of a misleading and disturbing allegation against him circulated in a WhatsApp group of former Class XII students of his school.
He was accused on social media of behaving inappropriately with a Grade IV student in 2015/2016.
He stated that the same allegation was circulated on Instagram and Facebook by hacking his inactive and defunct accounts.
The petitioner said he has consulted the Cyber Crime police station and will file an FIR shortly.
He expressed suspicion that the allegation may stem from infighting between Class XI and Class XII students in September/October 2025.
He stated that some students were suspended for several months in connection with the incident, and as a member of the School Committee, he had dealt with the matter.
He said he was shocked to learn of the present FIR against him.
Prosecution backs allegations
The Special PP submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are well-founded and that the investigation has uncovered many disturbing facts.
He insisted that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary.
Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the written submissions and argued that the allegation was motivated to slander him.
He submitted that the alleged incidents occurred long ago and the delay raises doubts about the genuineness of the accusation.
He added that the petitioner has had an unblemished service career spanning several decades, is due to retire next year, and cited medical documents to claim he has not been in good health.
Court ruling
After hearing the Special PP and defence counsel, the Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner appear well-founded.
There is every likelihood that the case involving the complainant’s brother was not an isolated incident, the Court added.
The Court also noted that the investigating officer commenced the investigation cautiously and did not attempt to arrest the petitioner immediately.
The Court also observed that there is a concern that the petitioner, if allowed to remain free, may hamper the investigation by influencing witnesses and misusing his position.
The medical documents filed do not clearly indicate any special medical condition at present, the Court added and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
The Court also vacated the interim relief granted earlier to the accused.