Kozhikode: Noted writer and social activist Civic Chandran, who has been accused in a sexual harassment case, surrendered before the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Vadakara on Tuesday a few days after his anticipatory bail was quashed by the Kerala High Court.
The Kozhikode Sessions Court had granted pre-arrest bail to the Leftist ideologue. Subsequently, the complainant and the state government challenged the Sessions Court order.
On October 20, the HC revoked the anticipatory bail and asked the writer to surrender within seven days.
The HC had earlier expunged the remarks by the Kozhikode Sessions Court that the attire of the survivor at the time of the alleged assault was ‘sexually provocative.’
The case
According to the complaint filed against Chandran, he had behaved indecently and grabbed the survivor while she was relaxing on the beach after a literary camp on February 8, 2020.
Subsequently, the Koyilandy police filed a case against Chandran on July 29, 2022. However, the Sessions Court granted him anticipatory bail.
In its judgment, the Sessions Court had made the controversial observations on the dress of the survivor after examining some photos from social media produced by Chandran’s lawyers.
The prosecution case is that in February 2022, the complainant, a Dalit writer, had organised a function in connection with the publication of her book. After the function, the accused allegedly kissing the back of her neck without her consent. The accused outraged the modesty of the victim with the knowledge that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste, according to the police.
Another case too
The Sessions Court had also granted anticipatory bail to the Civic Chandran in another sexual harassment case in which it is alleged that the accused made sexual advances toward the complainant, another young female writer, and tried to outrage her modesty at a camp convened at Nandi beach in February 2020.
While granting anticipatory bail, the court had observed that the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie applicable when the woman was wearing 'sexually provocative dresses'. This observation has been set aside by the high court.