Kochi: The Kerala High Court upheld the anticipatory bail to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, on Thursday. However, the High Court removed the Kozhikode Sessions court’s ‘sexually provocative dress’ remark from the bail order.
Justice Kauser Edappagath issued the verdict after hearing pleas filed by the state government and the complainant woman against the anticipatory bail granted to Civic Chandran. According to Live law, Justice Kauser Edappagath, while disposing of the two pleas moved by the State as well as the de facto complainant against the anticipatory bail order, observed that even though the reason shown by the court below for granting anticipatory bail cannot be justified, the order granting anticipatory bail cannot be set aside.
Earlier, the verdict of Kozhikode Sessions Court on granting anticipatory bail plea to Civic Chandran became controversial after the bail order said: ‘The offence under Section 354A of the IPC will not prima facie stand when the woman was wearing a sexually provocative dress’. In the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Sections 482, read with 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State had challenged the findings and reasoning given by the Sessions Court as suffering from ‘illegality, lack of sensitivity, sobriety and perversity’.
While passing the order, Justice Edappagath observed that the dressing of a victim cannot be construed as a legal ground to absolve an accused from the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman. ‘The right to wear any dress is a natural extension of personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and a facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even if a woman wears a provocative dress, that does not give a man the licence to outrage her modesty. Hence, the said finding of the court below in the impugned order is hereby set aside’, said the High Court.
The court observed that on merits, the petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The DGP has informed the HC that the investigation into the case is almost over. Therefore there is no need for custodial interrogation, considering the age of the accused and the circumstances of the case, the court observed.
Post Your Comments