The applicants serve as the Chairman and Secretary of the educational institution where the assaults occurred. They are accused of failing to report the incidents as required by Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. Their defense counsel argued that the applicants were unaware of the assaults until contacted by the investigating agency two days after the incidents occurred. Furthermore, the counsel pointed out that the victims attended school shortly after the alleged events and showed no visible signs of distress.

The prosecution, represented by Mr. HS Venegavkar, contended that the applicants, as responsible officials of the school, had a legal obligation to report the incidents. They highlighted that the victims' guardians had approached the school principal with their grievances, which should have prompted immediate action from the management. Additionally, concerns were raised about the tampering of CCTV footage, suggesting a potential cover-up of the incidents. The prosecution argued that the applicants had absconded and were not cooperating with the investigation, raising fears that they might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

The court referred to crucial provisions of the POCSO Act, specifically Sections 19 and 21. Section 19 mandates that any person with knowledge of a sexual offense against a child must report it to the appropriate authorities. Section 21 stipulates punishments for those who fail to fulfill this reporting obligation, particularly emphasizing the responsibilities of individuals in charge of educational institutions.

The court cited significant rulings from the Supreme Court, emphasizing the seriousness of non-reporting such crimes. In cases like *Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra* and *Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala*, the court affirmed the legal obligation of school authorities to report instances of sexual abuse promptly. The necessity for immediate action in such sensitive matters was underscored, as delays could compromise investigations and victim welfare.

The court noted that the applicants were responsible for the management of the school and had allegedly failed to report the incidents despite having knowledge of them. Concerns about the integrity of the available evidence, particularly missing CCTV footage, were also raised. Given the serious nature of the allegations, the court concluded that granting anticipatory bail could hinder the investigation and potentially allow for witness tampering.

In light of the serious allegations, the court ultimately denied the applicants' request for pre-arrest bail. The ruling reinforces the legal obligation to report crimes under the POCSO Act, particularly for those in positions of authority in educational institutions. This decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the rights of minors and the importance of accountability in cases of child abuse. The court clarified that its observations were preliminary and specific to the consideration of pre-arrest bail, indicating that the case would proceed through the judicial process with due diligence.