JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J —The petitioner was admitted to the I.M.T. & N.E. (Health Welfare) Sitapura, Jaipur (hereafter 'the College') in its three and half year GNM Course in the academic year 2014-15. Having passed GNM Ist and IInd year successfully he was promoted to the GNM IIIrd year. 2. It appears that at that stage a co-student lodged FIR No 665/2017 at Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur against the petitioner alleging that she had been subjected to an offence under Section 376 IPC at petitioner's instance. Whereupon the petitioner was arrested and sought bail. Albeit his bail application under Section 439 CrPC was rejected by the trial court, it was granted by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2017. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on being granted bail, he sought to continue IIIrd year classes in GNM course at the college. He has not been so allowed to do for reason of his purported suspension, a copy of which has never been furnished to him. It has been submitted that no doubt there is presently an allegation against the petitioner in FIR No. 665/2017 at Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur, yet the fundamental principal is that one is innocent till proved guilty. And the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the dictum which lies at the heart of liberty. 4. Mr. Arvind Sharma appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision relating to admission or continuing with the studies in the respondent College at Sitapura into the GNM course or otherwise, where a mere allegation of an offence no matter which, warrants a student being denied access to class. Counsel submitted that right to education is a fundamental right and cannot be peremptorily and completely taken away except by law, which is reasonable. The aforesaid right of the petitioner is yet being casually contravened by the respondent College by not allowing him to attend classes in GNM Part-III. Counsel submitted that attending lawfully admitted to classes, passing the examination on requisite attendance eligibility and obtaining a degree is also directly related to the petitioner's worth as a human being, which can only be realized if the petitioner is employable and then grows to have a family. Counsel submitted that attending lawfully admitted to classes, passing the examination on requisite attendance eligibility and obtaining a degree is also directly related to the petitioner's worth as a human being, which can only be realized if the petitioner is employable and then grows to have a family. It has been submitted that it is not that the petitioner is a serial criminal and except for the offence under Section 376 IPC alleged against him by a co-student, the petitioner has a clean record. Further counsel submitted prosecutrix having failed in GNM II will not be in the same class as the petitioner who is reading in GNM IIIrd. Mr. Ankit Sethi appearing for the respondent no.2 College was not in a position to point out any provision under which the students admitted to the college can be peremptorily suspended from attending classes merely on the lodging of an FIR. 5. Mr. Neeraj Batra appearing for the Rajasthan Nursing Council submitted that the Nursing Council has been impleaded as a party without just case in this petition as it has nothing to do with the suspension of the petitioner or being denied access to classes as a student of GNM Part-III at the respondent-College. He submitted that Council is only the examining body and all students forwarded as eligible by the concerned colleges are allowed to write the examinations at the end of an academic year. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Right to education is a fundamental right. It cannot be casually taken away as sought to be done in the case of the petitioner without authority of law. No provision of law has been brought to the notice of the Court nor in fact any condition of the admission of the petitioner to the respondent College cited where mere lodgement of an FIR entails the student's suspension from classes. No doubt a case of serious nature has been lodged against the petitioner by a co-student but the fact remains that the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court. Indeed grant of bail is not an acquittal yet the fact remains that on consideration of the matter, the Court has come to a conclusion that it is a case in which the petitioner's liberty cannot be restrained. Indeed grant of bail is not an acquittal yet the fact remains that on consideration of the matter, the Court has come to a conclusion that it is a case in which the petitioner's liberty cannot be restrained. Though unarticulated an element of prima-facie defence in the probabilities of the case obtains for the petitioner no doubt rebuttable on substantive evidence of probative worth before the trial court . 8. The Court also takes into consideration the fact as stated by counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner is in GNM Part-III, the prosecutrix having failed is still in GNM Part-II. That statement has not been rebutted by counsel for the College - no embarrassment from the petitioner attending classes in GNM Part-III would thus arise. Further in the event the petitioner is prevented from attending classes in GNM Part-III Course having already passed Part-I and II, he would suffer grave prejudice which would be incapable of recompense in the event of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case lodged against him. A human being has to be given a real chance in life which comes from education, resultant employment and consequent family. The above three components in life ordinarily at least, create human worth and self dignity and makes one an integral part of society not a disgruntled citizen going whichever way. 9. Resultantly, I would allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be allowed to attend GNM Part-III Classes of which he is a student forthwith and order of suspension, if any, not admittedly served on the petitioner, will be of no consequence to his right determined above. 10. Petition stands accordingly allowed.