The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail granted to a school teacher accused in a POCSO case involving a three-year-old nursery student, ruling that the trial court had overlooked crucial evidence while deciding the bail plea.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, hearing the State's petition against the bail order, set aside the relief granted to respondent Kriti Sahni and directed her to surrender before the jurisdictional POCSO court within three days.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to April 2026, when the child, enrolled in a nursery class at a school in Janakpuri, came home crying and complained of pain in her private parts. She told her mother that a boy at school had hurt her, leading to the registration of an FIR.
A few days later, during her statement recorded before a magistrate, the child gave a more detailed account, describing how a "Madam" at the school had taken her to the basement, removed her clothes, and cleaned blood stains before giving her sweets. During identification proceedings that followed, the child pointed out the respondent as this "Madam."
Investigators also recovered a blood-stained tissue and a piece of bedsheet from the spot, and medical records showed the child was later treated for a urinary infection. The respondent, a teacher at the school for thirteen years, was arrested about two weeks after the incident. She was granted regular bail by the trial court within six days of her arrest.
What the State Argued
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the trial court had granted bail mechanically, without weighing the seriousness of the allegations or the vulnerability of the child. He pointed out that the child was under the respondent's care as her class teacher on the day of the incident, and that the trial court had wrongly focused on her clean record and her status as a mother, instead of the evidence pointing to her role.
He also flagged that several CCTV cameras at the school were not working at the time, and that the respondent's long association with the institution could allow her to influence staff members who were potential witnesses.
What the Defence Said
Senior advocate K.K. Manan, representing the respondent, defended the trial court's order, arguing that his client had been falsely implicated. He pointed out that her name did not figure in the original complaint or the FIR, and surfaced only later in the child's statement to the magistrate. He argued this pointed to tutoring of the child by her mother. He also said the medical examination did not show fresh injuries, and that the respondent had cooperated with the probe and never tried to influence witnesses.
Court's Observations
The bench noted that while courts must ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with bail orders, interference becomes necessary when a trial court has ignored material facts, especially in cases involving grave offences against children.
The bench observed,
"the learned Trial Court erred in completely ignoring the crucial fact that the victim had not only identified the respondent herein in the presence of the complainant/ her mother but also the very spot where the incident took place."
The Court held that a three-year-old child cannot be expected to disclose every detail during her first complaint, and that the absence of the respondent's name in the initial statement could not, by itself, discredit her later identification of the accused. It noted that the FIR is not "the gospel truth or an encyclopedia" and can be supported by details that emerge later in the investigation.
The judgment also flagged that the trial court had not considered the respondent's long-standing position of authority at the school, which the bench said created some possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, particularly since the case was still at an early stage.
The Decision
Holding that the trial court's order was passed without due consideration of relevant material, the High Court set aside the bail granted on May 20, 2026, and directed the respondent to surrender before the POCSO court within three days.
The Court clarified that its observations were made only for deciding the bail petition and would not affect the outcome of the trial.
Case Details
Case Title: State vs Kriti Sahni
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4328/2026, CRL.M.A. 17440/2026
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decision Date: July 15, 2026
