Kozhikode: The sessions court here, which stoked controversy with its observation on "sexually provocative dress" while granting bail to activist Civic Chandran aka C V Kuttan in a sexual harassment case, had adopted a controversial stand in an earlier case against the same man.

In the earlier case of similar nature, the court observed that the alleged incident will not attract charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In its order dated August 2 granting anticipatory bail to Chandran, the court observed that the alleged incident did not take place with the knowledge that the woman hailed from a Scheduled Caste community.

All are equal before the law and the authors of the Indian Constitution envisaged a casteless society, the court pointed out. The court also observed that the survivor lacked common sense.

The case was filed based on a complaint by a young woman writer, who accused Chandran of assaulting her in Kozhikode on April 17 during a book release.

In the second harassment case, the court sparked a controversy while granting bail to Chandran when it said in its order dated August 12 that the survivor was clad in a sexually provocative dress on the day of the alleged incident, and hence Section 354A (sexual harassment and punishment) of the Indian Penal Code will not prima facie stand against the accused.

The court's "anti-women and insulting" observations in the second case while granting bail to Chandran invited widespread criticism, including from P Sathidevi, Chairperson of the State Women's Commission.

The case, registered by the Koyilandy police, pertained to Chandran allegedly sexually harassing a woman during a camp organised at Nandi Beach on February 8, 2020.

Accepting the photographs of the survivor the defence had produced, sessions court judge S Krishna Kumar noted in the order that "The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that the de facto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one. So Section 354A will not prima facies stand against the accused."

The court also noted that "it is impossible to believe that a man having aged 74 and physically disabled can forcefully put the de facto complainant in his lap" and sexually abuse the 30-year-old woman.

The judge further noted in the order that the educated complainant was fully aware of the consequences of sexual assault and added that she had not explained the delay in filing the complaint.

The court also observed that the case was registered after another case (crime 483/2022) of similar nature was filed by the same (Koyilandy) police station. Chandran was granted bail in that case as well.

The court granted bail to Chandran on executing a bond for Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amount in case of arrest by Koyilandy police.