Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case | Allahabad High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Accused-Teacher

A bench of Justice Deepak Verma, however, directed no coercive action against her for two weeks or until she surrenders before the concerned Court seeking regular bail, whichever is earlier.

Tyagi, booked under Sections 323, 504, 295(A) I.P.C. and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, had moved to the High Court after a local court rejected her anticipatory bail plea in October this year.

Her counsel argued that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to an ulterior motive and that the offence alleged in the FIR is below 3 years. On the other hand, AGA opposed the applicant's bail prayer.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court refused to grant the relief sought by Tyagi.

The #AllahabadHighCourt has denied Anticipatory Bail to #Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case accused-teacher.

HC directs no coercive action against her for two weeks or till the time she surrenders before the concerned Court seeking regular bail, whichever is earlier. pic.twitter.com/ukGxEDnCUk

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 5, 2024

A video of the unfortunate incident went viral on social media last year, sparking significant public outrage. The accused teacher, however, has maintained that the video was doctored and deliberately circulated to "create a Hindu-Muslim issue."

She has claimed that, as a handicapped individual, she was unable to get up and, in an attempt to make the student focus on his studies, asked some children to slap him a couple of times.

Following the incident, activist Tushar Gandhi filed a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, seeking a proper and time-bound investigation. A detailed background can be seen here.

Last week, the counsel for the PIL petitioner, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, told the Supreme Court that while Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 exists to protect children against religious discrimination in school, the authorities are not acknowledging the problem and addressing it.

The Top court last year noted a “prima facie failure on the part of the State” to adhere to the Right to Education Act and rules, which prohibit the physical and mental harassment of students, and their discrimination based on religion and caste.

The court has been monitoring the issue, expressing dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh police's initial investigation and delays in registering an FIR. It ordered a senior police officer to oversee the case and directed the state to ensure compliance with provisions under the Right to Education Act and Article 21A of the Constitution.

In previous hearings, the Court has criticized the state government for its approach, including its reluctance to facilitate the victim's admission to a private school under the Central Board of Secondary Education board.

The state had argued against the private school admission, citing long-distance travel and socioeconomic differences with other students. However, the court directed the admission and mandated support for the child's educational needs, including counselling by expert organizations like the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.