Facts of the Case

In this case, the petitioner, who was the manager of a company, was accused by the complainant, a former employee, of sexual harassment. The complainant alleged that the petitioner grabbed her by the arms with sexual intent. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail and argued that the complaint was false. He claimed that the complainant had been dismissed from the company for inefficiency and non-performance and had later verbally abused the petitioner and other staff members, threatening that they would “soon realize what she is capable of.” The petitioner filed a police complaint based on these threats, which was received before the complainant’s own complaint of harassment. The petitioner further presented a recorded conversation in which the complainant allegedly threatened him. However, the police did not investigate the petitioner’s complaint.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the sexual harassment allegations were baseless and filed in retaliation for his decision to terminate the complainant’s employment. He contended that he had been threatened by the complainant before her filing of the sexual harassment complaint. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail and urged the court to direct the police to investigate both the complainant’s accusations and his own complaint.

Contention of the Respondent

The respondent, representing the complainant, contended that the petitioner had sexually harassed the victim and that the allegations were true. The complainant sought the court’s intervention to prevent anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the petitioner’s actions were unlawful.

Court’s Observation

The Kerala High Court acknowledged the importance of fair investigation in sexual harassment cases. The Court noted that there was a growing tendency to make serious allegations of sexual assault, sometimes falsely implicating innocent individuals. The court observed that there cannot be an automatic presumption that a woman’s version in such cases is always the truth. “The duty of the police is to investigate both the complainant’s and the accused’s versions and not proceed based solely on the complainant’s statement,” the Court remarked. The Court emphasized that false complaints could cause significant damage to an accused’s reputation, and such damage could not be compensated merely by monetary relief.

The Court directed the police to investigate the petitioner’s complaint and the alleged audio conversation, wherein the complainant purportedly threatened the petitioner. It noted that the police had not yet investigated this aspect of the case.

The Court further stated that police officers should not fear backlash for investigating false complaints and could take action if it is determined that the allegations were fabricated. The Court assured that the law would protect the officers as long as their findings were correct.

Court’s Decision

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, observing that the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The Court ordered that the petitioner should cooperate with the investigation and appear before the police for questioning. If the police decided to arrest him post-interrogation, he was to be granted bail on certain conditions, including the submission of the audio clip and complaint to the investigating officer.

The Court further instructed the investigating officer to thoroughly investigate the matter, considering both the victim’s complaint and the petitioner’s allegations. If the investigation reveals that the sexual harassment case was false, the Court directed that appropriate action be taken against the complainant. Additionally, the Court held that if any of the conditions of bail were violated, the jurisdictional court could cancel the bail.

Credits: Deeksha Rai