Social activist Civic Chandran had alleged that the case is false and “cooked up by his enemies”.
Kochi: The Kozhikode district sessions court in Kerala said that an offence under Section 354A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code would prima facie not be attracted since the woman was wearing “sexually provocative dresses”. The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to writer and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case.
Chandran had furnished photographs of the complainant while placing the bail plea on August 12. On August 2, he secured anticipatory bail in another sexual harassment case filed against him.
The complainant in the first case had said that the alleged sexual harassment took place on February 8 at a camp convened by Chandran and others near Koyilandy in the Kozhikode district.
The complaint said, “When the participants were returning after the camp, Chandran allegedly held the complainant’s hands and forcibly took her to a lonely place. He asked her to lie on his lap, pressed her breast and tried to outrage her modesty.” The complaint was received against Chandran on July 29 and later a case was registered under Sections 354A (2), 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Judge S Krishna, while granting anticipatory bail to Chandran, said, “In order to attract Section 354 A (sexual harassment), there must be physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be a sexually coloured remark. The photographs produced along with the anticipatory bail application by the accused would reveal that the complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one. Section 354 A will not prima facie stand against the accused.”
The court further added, “…even admitting that there was a physical contact, it is impossible to believe that a 74-year-old physically disabled man can forcefully put the complainant woman to his lap and sexually press her breast. So, it is a case where an accused can be granted bail.”
Chandran had alleged that the case is false and “cooked up by his enemies”. He also questioned the delay in filing the complaint. The court, subsequently, noted that the complainant is an educated lady fully aware of the consequences of sexual assault. “Why she was reluctant to file the complaint has to be explained by her. But absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming,” the court observed.
