Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Thursday, while disposing of two pleas challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, expunged the 'sexually provocative dress' remark of Kozhikode Sessions Court.
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.
The observations in the Kozhikode Sessions Court order, which was passed on August 12, had created massive outrage. The court had said offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing 'sexually provocative dresses'.
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, reported Live Law.
“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 Director General of Prosecution earlier submitted before the court that the investigation was almost over in the case.
Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the accused, the court observed that custodial interrogation will not be necessary.
The court disposed of both the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases and upheld the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused.
(With Live Law inputs)