123 Kolkata: The bail plea of a blind school principal accused of raping a minor was turned down by the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday, considering the "gravity" of the offence while stating that the survivor has "clearly implicated" him.The bail plea of the principal of a blind school at Behala Chowrasta, accused of raping a child in 2010, was turned down by the Calcutta High Court on May 14. This decision acknowledged the statements filed by the survivor as well as other girls alleging sexual abuse against him.The principal, who is 100% visually impaired according to his lawyer, has been asked to make his arguments at a lower court where the trial is presently ongoing. His counsel, Milan Mukherjee, approached the court stating that he was in custody for one year and 15 days. Mukherjee pointed out to the court that the complaint against his client was lodged 14 years after the incident by the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) in 2024 at Ultadanga PS, which was later transferred to Haridevpur PS.The brief facts of the case are that the blind school principal was accused of sexually abusing the girl and committing penetrative sexual assault within the premises. It was alleged that he took advantage of vulnerable conditions multiple times and misused his position. He was arrested on April 3, 2024. The medical examination of the victim was conducted on May 3, 2024. The FIR was registered on March 8, 2024, and the charge sheet was submitted on June 5, 2024. While questioning the long gap in the filing of the complaint, his counsel also pointed out that the accused cannot be charged under the POCSO Act, considering the incident was claimed to have taken place in 2010, which was two years before the POCSO Act was implemented. "The Act does not have a retrospective effect to take into its fold any offence of such nature committed prior to the coming into force of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act," Mukherjee argued. However, Justice Bivas Pattanayak remained firm on the point that these arguments—the POCSO Act section and the delay in filing of the case—can be made before the trial court by his lawyer. Even the argument on the age of the survivor mentioned on her Madhyamik admit card, which indicated that she was 18 years and 6 months old, was observed to be decided in trial."Upon going through the statement of the victim girl recorded before the Magistrate, it is found that she has clearly implicated the petitioner… On the basis of the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner," the judge held.Kolkata: The bail plea of a blind school principal accused of raping a minor was turned down by the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday, considering the "gravity" of the offence while stating that the survivor has "clearly implicated" him.The bail plea of the principal of a blind school at Behala Chowrasta, accused of raping a child in 2010, was turned down by the Calcutta High Court on May 14. This decision acknowledged the statements filed by the survivor as well as other girls alleging sexual abuse against him.The principal, who is 100% visually impaired according to his lawyer, has been asked to make his arguments at a lower court where the trial is presently ongoing. His counsel, Milan Mukherjee, approached the court stating that he was in custody for one year and 15 days. Mukherjee pointed out to the court that the complaint against his client was lodged 14 years after the incident by the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) in 2024 at Ultadanga PS, which was later transferred to Haridevpur PS.The brief facts of the case are that the blind school principal was accused of sexually abusing the girl and committing penetrative sexual assault within the premises. It was alleged that he took advantage of vulnerable conditions multiple times and misused his position. He was arrested on April 3, 2024. The medical examination of the victim was conducted on May 3, 2024. The FIR was registered on March 8, 2024, and the charge sheet was submitted on June 5, 2024. While questioning the long gap in the filing of the complaint, his counsel also pointed out that the accused cannot be charged under the POCSO Act, considering the incident was claimed to have taken place in 2010, which was two years before the POCSO Act was implemented. "The Act does not have a retrospective effect to take into its fold any offence of such nature committed prior to the coming into force of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act," Mukherjee argued. However, Justice Bivas Pattanayak remained firm on the point that these arguments—the POCSO Act section and the delay in filing of the case—can be made before the trial court by his lawyer. Even the argument on the age of the survivor mentioned on her Madhyamik admit card, which indicated that she was 18 years and 6 months old, was observed to be decided in trial."Upon going through the statement of the victim girl recorded before the Magistrate, it is found that she has clearly implicated the petitioner… On the basis of the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner," the judge held.