The Narendrapur school case intensifies as the headmaster avoids arrest through anticipatory bail, sparking displeasure from the Calcutta High Court. Accusations of corruption and teacher assaults heighten public calls for accountability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Narendrapur school case, the headmaster has managed to evade arrest due to the application of anticipatory bail, leaving the public questioning the legal implications of such a move. Calcutta High Court Justice Biswajit Bose expressed his concern during the case hearing on Monday, raising the pertinent question-
“Why could the headmaster not be arrested if anticipatory bail has been applied for?”
The police clarified that the accused teacher has not been arrested as he sought anticipatory bail, highlighting a legal loophole that prevents arrests in such situations.
ALSO READ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses PIL on Srisailam Temple Agama Dispute
Justice Biswajit Bose further pressed the issue, questioning the logic behind allowing someone to escape arrest simply by applying for anticipatory bail, stating-
“If you apply for anticipatory bail, can’t you be arrested?”
The Board of Secondary Education added another layer to the controversy by revealing that the head teacher has been suspended until January 30. The judge sought reassurance, asking,
“I hope the police can arrest all the accused,”
– emphasizing the need for accountability in the ongoing investigation.
The incident at Balrampur Manmathnath Vidyamandir in Narendrapur involved the assault and torture of teachers last Saturday. The victims reported that the head teacher’s corruption had surfaced, and in an attempt to cover up the allegations, he allegedly used his influence to bring outsiders into the classroom, leading to the physical assault of teachers during school hours.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Upholds Divorce on Grounds of Concealed Medical Conditions
Justice Basu expressed to the police’s role in the case, speedy ordering the arrest of all the accused. In response, the headmaster challenged the judgment of the single bench by approaching the division bench. However, the division bench rejected their appeal, maintaining the stance that all accused individuals must be held accountable.
This case not only sheds light on the alleged corruption and misuse of power within educational institutions but also ignites a broader discussion on the legal protections available to individuals accused of serious offenses. The rejection of the headmaster’s appeal by the division bench serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to uphold justice, even in the face of procedural complexities.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
