Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD. ( 2 ) MR. S. G. SUBRAMANI, working as Assistant Head Master in Government higher Secondary School, Sholavaram, Chennai, calling himself as an aged man of 56 years, has approached this Court seeking bail under Section 439 o f the code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the case registered against him under sections 376 read with 511, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE facts are quite interesting. The petitioner is the resident of New erumaivettipalayam. The victim Sarala aged about 12 years, hailing from the same village, is studying in VI Standard in Sholavaram Government Higher secondary School, in which, the petitioner has been working as Assistant Head master. Two months prior to the instant occurrence, the petitioner went to the house of the victim while her parents were away and on seeing that she was alone, he locked the door from inside and pulled her petty coat and touched her private part and attempted to rape her. When she raised alarm, the petitioner ran away from the house after threatening her not to divulge the same to others, or else, he would make her fail in her class. Therefore, she did not tell this to anybody. ( 4 ) ON the date of occurrence, that is on 16-10-1997, after attending her morning classes, the victim Sarala took her lunch and was about to enter into her class room. At that time, the petitioner, Assistant Head Master, called her to come along with him in his motor cycle after the evening class is over. She refused to accompany him thinking or fearing that he would misbehave with her again. But the petitioner, on her refusal, beat her over her cheeks and back and warned her that he would arrange for giving her the Transfer Certificate if she would not come with him. Immediately thereafter, even without attending the evening class, the victim came home weeping and told her mother about this. Thereafter, complaint has been preferred to the Police and case has been registered under the above sections of law. ( 5 ) DURING the course of investigation, it came to light that apart from the victim Sarala in this case, two other girls by name Anitha and Lakshmi aged 13 and 14 respectively were subjected to the same sexual assault by the petitioner. ( 5 ) DURING the course of investigation, it came to light that apart from the victim Sarala in this case, two other girls by name Anitha and Lakshmi aged 13 and 14 respectively were subjected to the same sexual assault by the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has examined those victims and other teachers. On the next day itself, the petitioner applied for leave on the ground that he was going on leave due to family circumstances. The Investigating Officer, while searching for the petitioner found that the address of residence given in the leave application was false. Moreover, the Parents Association and the local people took out a procession and sent memorandum to the authorities concerned including the Police to take suitable action against the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE petitioner who was absconding subsequent to the registration of the case, filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court and the same has been dismissed on 4-11-1997. Therefore, on 5-11-1997, he surrendered before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. This is how the present bail application has been resorted to. ( 7 ) MR. Sambamoorthy, Counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the following decisions. (i) Jai Chand vs. State (ii) State vs. P. Balan2 (iii) Premanidhi Singh vs. State of Orissa (iv) Hari Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (v) Jagannivasan vs. State of Kerala (vi) Anath Bandhu Kundu vs. State of W. B. Would vehemently argue that the contents of the complaint and other materials, would not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code and the other offences under sections 323 and 354 I. P. C. are only bailable offences and that therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. ( 8 ) I am afraid that I cannot countenance the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner since none of the decisions would refer about the appreciation of evidence at the time of granting bail. All those decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, were only after the entire evidence was let in and in the process of appreciation, the said views have been expressed. All those decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, were only after the entire evidence was let in and in the process of appreciation, the said views have been expressed. But in this case, the petitioner has been regular in committing these offences of taking the girl students in his motor cycle after the evening classes are over on the pretext of giving lift to them and then misbehave with them. These things are brought to light through the statements of the three victims in this case. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged about 56 years. Merely because he is said to be an aged person, it could not be contended that he would not have misbehaved with the victims, who are aged ranging from 12 to 14, who have no axe to grind against the petitioner. The petitioner who is an Assistant Head Master has to teach lessons to the students, the future citizens of this country, and mould them in the years to come in all walks of their life as a good and principled citizen. But here in this case, it is quite alarming to see that the petitioner has resorted to such an act of misbehaving with the girl students, thereby bringing disrepute to the institution, which has given job to him. ( 10 ) GOVERNMENT Advocate would oppose the application on the ground that investigation is still pending and the entire public are agitated over the immoral act of the petitioner and a tense situation is prevailing in that area and therefore, the petitioner may not be granted bail especially when the address given by the petitioner in his leave application is found to be false. ( 11 ) IN view of the objections, which are sustainable, I do not find valid ground to grant bail at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh application after some change of circumstances. Hence, petition is dismissed.