Bhuvana Marni
Published on: October 13, 2022 at 11:40 IST
On Thursday, the Kerala High Court struck down the Kozhikode Sessions Court’s statement on Civic Chandran’s “sexually provocative dress” as it addressed two pleas against the granting of anticipatory bail to the novelist and social activist in a case involving sexual harassment.
When deciding on the two arguments raised by the State and the De facto complainant against the anticipatory bail order, Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that even though the Court below’s justification for granting anticipatory bail could not be justified, the order granting anticipatory bail could not be reversed.
In these circumstances, it is thought that the court’s judgement granting anticipatory bail cannot be set aside even though the justification provided by the court below for doing so cannot be justified.
The massive uproar was sparked by the comments made in the Kozhikode Sessions Court decision, which was issued on August 12.
The court had stated that while the woman was wearing “sexually provocative dresses,” the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code was not initially appealing.
The State had contested the findings and justification offered by the Sessions Court in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Sections 482 read with 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming they suffered from “illegality, lack of sensitivity, sobriety, and perversity.”
Justice Edappagath observed while approving the ruling that the victim’s clothing could not be utilized as a legal ground to absolve an accused person from the allegation of offending a woman’s modesty.
“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 cannot give a licence to a man to outrage her modesty. Hence, the said finding of the Court below in the impugned order is hereby set aside,” said the court.
The Court noted that the petitioner had made a case for anticipatory bail based on the merits.
Before the Court, the Director General of Prosecution stated that the case’s investigation was almost complete.
The Court said that an incarcerated interrogation will not be required after taking into account the case’s facts, circumstances, and the accused’s age.
They decided on both criminal miscellaneous cases and affirmed the decision to give the defendants anticipatory bail.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran and XXXXX vs. State of Kerala