The Court observed that from the wordings of Section 354 it is very clear that there must be an intention on the part of the accused for outraging the modesty of a woman.
While granting anticipatory bail to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, a Kerala Court stated that the offense under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing ‘sexually provocative dresses, reported Live Law.
The 74-year-old accused had submitted the photographs of the woman along with the bail plea.
“The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one, the sessions court said.
“So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused”, the Kozhikode Sessions Court said in its order.
The Court also expressed disbelief that the 74-year-old physically disabled accused could forcefully put the defacto complainant in his lap and press her breasts, reported live law.
Also Read: ED Likely To File Chargesheet Against Jacqueline Fernandez
The Court observed that from the wordings of Section 354 it is very clear that there must be an intention on the part of the accused for outraging the modesty of a woman.
Section 354A deals with sexual harassment and its punishments; to attract this Section there must be physical contact and there must be physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, and there must be sexually colored remarks or demands or requests for sexual favors.
The prosecution alleged, that the accused made sexual advances toward the de facto complainant who is a young female writer and tried to outrage her modesty in a camp convened at Nandi beach in February 2020. The Koyilandi police have filed a case against the accused for offenses under Section 354A(2), 341, and 354 of the IPC.
When the Bail Plea came before the Session Court, counsel appearing for the accused, Advocates P.V. Hari and Sushama M, contended that it is a false case and has been fabricated against the accused by some of his enemies to seek vengeance against him. It was also contended that the case was lodged around 6 months after the alleged occurrence of the incident and the cause of delay should be explained by the prosecution.
Producing photographs published by the de facto complainant on her social media account, he contended that the de facto complainant was accompanied by her boyfriend to the place of occurrence and there were several people present at the time of the alleged incident, and no one raised such a complaint against the accused.
The Public Prosecutor challenged the granting of bail to the accused, contending that a similar sexual harassment case had been previously filed against the accused.
The Court noted, that it is a well-settled principle that when there is a long delay in registering a First Information Report (FIR), then the reason for the delay, must be properly explained.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
