A Kerala court on Thursday refused to grant bail to businessman Boby Chemmanur who was arrested yesterday in connection with a sexual harassment case filed against him by a Malayalam actress. .The Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Ernakulam remanded Chemmanur to custody for 14 days.Magistrate Abhirami A rejected Chemmanur's claims that his actions were innocent.They were ripe with sexual innuendo, the Court said."Upon perusal of the FIS and the report submitted by the prosecution, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner/accused has not only twirled the informant once, but turned her around again by uttering 'ഒരിക്കൽ കൂടി മാലയുടെ പിൻവശം കാണു.' The said act of the petitioner/accused can be ex facie understood to be a sexual innuendo, as his sole intention was to display the informant's behind to the crowd. Furthermore, during the said event, the petitioner/accused also addressed her as 'Kunthidevi', which again is another sexual innuendo. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused attempted to justify the comment made by the petitioner/accused by stating that the said remark was made by him as the informant reminded her of an actress, who played the role of 'Kunthidevi' in a television serial. However, it can be prima facie understood that the said comment made by him is indeed a sexual innuendo, smartly disguised in the form of a poorly worded compliment," the order stated. .The actress in her complaint accused Chemmanur of making inappropriate comments to her during a personal interaction at the inaugural function for a jewellery store owned by the businessman. She also contended that Chemmanur's comments induced others to make sexually inappropriate comments about her on her social media posts and other online platforms.Before filing the police complaint, the actress had taken to social media deprecating those who had been making obscene comments about her and warning them of legal consequences. Chemmanur was arrested from Wayanad on January 8 and booked under Sections 75(1)(i) (physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures) and 75(1)(iv) (making sexually coloured remarks as a form of sexual harassment) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act.Chemmanur subsequently moved the Magistrate Court for bail arguing that all the allegations against him are false and concocted by the actress as part of a publicity stunt. He also produced a video recording of the alleged incident and pointed out that the actress had waited for 5 months after the incident to file the complaint. It was also submitted that any evidence to be collected in this case is easily available in the public domain, making his remand unnecessary. .The public prosecutor on the other hand strongly opposed the grant of bail, stating that the incident was only one instance of a pattern of inappropriate behaviour from Chemmanur towards the actress.He also cited a recent order of the Kerala High Court in which it was observed that making remarks about a woman's body would prima facie amount to insulting her modesty and will constitute the offence of sexual harassment.The prosecutor further alleged that Chemmanur is a man of means who is capable of absconding or influencing witnesses if granted bail. Pertinently, the prosecutor submitted that Chemmanur is accused in other criminal cases as well. .Considering all these aspects, the Magistrate ultimately deemed it fit to deny bail. .Chemmanur was represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocate Geo Paul, MR Dhanil and VB Sujesh Menon. .[Read Order]
A Kerala court on Thursday refused to grant bail to businessman Boby Chemmanur who was arrested yesterday in connection with a sexual harassment case filed against him by a Malayalam actress. .The Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Ernakulam remanded Chemmanur to custody for 14 days.Magistrate Abhirami A rejected Chemmanur's claims that his actions were innocent.They were ripe with sexual innuendo, the Court said."Upon perusal of the FIS and the report submitted by the prosecution, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner/accused has not only twirled the informant once, but turned her around again by uttering 'ഒരിക്കൽ കൂടി മാലയുടെ പിൻവശം കാണു.' The said act of the petitioner/accused can be ex facie understood to be a sexual innuendo, as his sole intention was to display the informant's behind to the crowd. Furthermore, during the said event, the petitioner/accused also addressed her as 'Kunthidevi', which again is another sexual innuendo. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused attempted to justify the comment made by the petitioner/accused by stating that the said remark was made by him as the informant reminded her of an actress, who played the role of 'Kunthidevi' in a television serial. However, it can be prima facie understood that the said comment made by him is indeed a sexual innuendo, smartly disguised in the form of a poorly worded compliment," the order stated. .The actress in her complaint accused Chemmanur of making inappropriate comments to her during a personal interaction at the inaugural function for a jewellery store owned by the businessman. She also contended that Chemmanur's comments induced others to make sexually inappropriate comments about her on her social media posts and other online platforms.Before filing the police complaint, the actress had taken to social media deprecating those who had been making obscene comments about her and warning them of legal consequences. Chemmanur was arrested from Wayanad on January 8 and booked under Sections 75(1)(i) (physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures) and 75(1)(iv) (making sexually coloured remarks as a form of sexual harassment) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act.Chemmanur subsequently moved the Magistrate Court for bail arguing that all the allegations against him are false and concocted by the actress as part of a publicity stunt. He also produced a video recording of the alleged incident and pointed out that the actress had waited for 5 months after the incident to file the complaint. It was also submitted that any evidence to be collected in this case is easily available in the public domain, making his remand unnecessary. .The public prosecutor on the other hand strongly opposed the grant of bail, stating that the incident was only one instance of a pattern of inappropriate behaviour from Chemmanur towards the actress.He also cited a recent order of the Kerala High Court in which it was observed that making remarks about a woman's body would prima facie amount to insulting her modesty and will constitute the offence of sexual harassment.The prosecutor further alleged that Chemmanur is a man of means who is capable of absconding or influencing witnesses if granted bail. Pertinently, the prosecutor submitted that Chemmanur is accused in other criminal cases as well. .Considering all these aspects, the Magistrate ultimately deemed it fit to deny bail. .Chemmanur was represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocate Geo Paul, MR Dhanil and VB Sujesh Menon. .[Read Order]
