Facts of the Case

The Kerala High Court addressed a bail plea filed by businessman Mr B, accused of sexually harassing a Malayalam actress during a jewelry store inauguration in Kannur. The accusations included sexually suggestive remarks and inappropriate comments shared on social media platforms. Chemmanur was charged under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (sexual harassment) and Section 67 of the IT Act (transmission of obscene content). Arrested on January 8, 2025, he was subsequently remanded to 14 days of judicial custody by the Ernakulam Magistrate Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel, argued that the remarks were misconstrued and lacked criminal intent. It was also contended that the complainant did not raise objections at the time of the alleged incident, implying consent or indifference. The defence submitted a video suggesting the remarks were not offensive, arguing that the complaint was filed with ulterior motives to malign the petitioner’s reputation.

Contentions of the Respondent

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the societal implications of granting bail to a public figure. The prosecution presented videos showing the petitioner’s comments, arguing they carried an unmistakable double meaning. The prosecutor underscored that such acts promote an environment that normalizes sexual harassment and body shaming, warranting strict judicial scrutiny.

Court’s Observations

The court granted bail to the petitioner, imposing strict conditions, including a warning that any repeat offense would result in cancellation. It directed that the victim or prosecution could seek bail cancellation if terms were violated. The judgment emphasized protecting individual dignity while balancing societal interests and condemned body shaming as a harmful and unacceptable practice.

Court’s Order

The court granted bail to the petitioner, imposing strict conditions, including a warning that any repeat offense would result in cancellation. It directed that the victim or prosecution could seek bail cancellation if terms were violated. The judgment emphasized protecting individual dignity while balancing societal interests and condemned body shaming as a harmful and unacceptable practice.