[YouTuber Assault case] That vigilantism could be encouraged if bail is granted is not a reason to deny bail: Kerala High Court

" There is no doubt that vigilantism has no place in a civilised society" , said the Kerala High Court in on Tuesday while allowing the pre-arrest bail applications moved by three women accused of assaulting YouTuber Vijay P Nair in reaction to derogatory comments made in his videos.

. All the same, the Justice Ashok Menon reasoned that this cannot be a reason to deny bail to the three women accused. ( Bhagyalakshmi K. v. State of Kerala).

.[YouTuber Assault] Kerala High Court allows pre-arrest bail to Bhagyalakshmi, Diya Sana, Sreelakshmi Arackal. In his order, Justice Menon observes,

. "If people are permitted to take law into their hands and do what they believe to be right and justified, there will be a chaotic situation and would have the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the state and altering the constitutional order. Such extrajudicial acts under the guise of protection of law definitely requires to be kept under check, otherwise it would lead to rise of anarchy, lawlessness and mobocracy. I am in total agreement with the learned counsel for the de facto complainant on this aspect." .[YouTuber Assault case] Vijay P Nair intervenes in assailants' pre-arrest bail plea in Kerala HC, says no one can take law into their own hands. Pertinently, the Judge proceeded to emphasise,

. "But granting of bail is based on totally different parameters, and the fact that granting bail to the applicants would give a wrong message to the public at large and that it would amount to an encouragement of vigilantism is no reason to refuse granting of bail." Kerala High Court . The three accused, Bhagyalakshmi, a dubbing artist, Sajna P.S. (Diya Sana), and Sreelakshmi Arackal went to Vijay P Nair’s office on September 26 and poured black ink and nettle oil on his face for his vulgar remarks against one of the women and slurs on ‘ feminists ’ generally in his YouTube videos.

. The assault was streamed live on Facebook. After they threw black oil on his face, they left the house with his phone and laptop.

. During the hearing, the Nair's Counsel Advocate Arjun Venugopal had vehemently opposed any grant of anticipatory bail to the three women stating among other grounds that:

. Their act of assaulting the YouTuber and taking away his phone and laptop constituted robbery,

Their custodial interrogation was required to ascertain the whereabouts of the devices they used to record the video of the assault.

. Rejecting his submissions, the Judge has noted that the offence of robbery requires an element of dishonest intention , which did not seem present in the case at hand, since they "had gone straight to the Police station to surrender the articles." Therefore, it did not seem as if there was dishonest intention present.

. The Court explained:

"Wrongful loss" and "wrongful gain" must be involved in dishonesty. There is serious doubt about those ingredients in the instant case."

. The Judge also rebutted the argument that custodial interrogation was necessary to find out about the mobile phones they used to record the video. He pointed out that an investigation officer could ask the women to produce their phones under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a case, they would be obligated to produce them.

. Justice Menon also ruled out incarcerating the women just for the purpose of teaching them a lesson and send out a message against vigilantism.Since the likelihood of the assailants evading interrogation were narrow, the Court opined that they could be allowed bail.

. "Though I do not approve of vigilantism shown by the applicants in taking law into their hands, I also do not feel it necessary to incarcerate them just for the purpose of giving them a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." Justice Ashok Menon . The relevant criteria were whether the offence was grave and whether the assailant was likely to flee justice, the High Court elucidated.

. In the case at hand, the assailants had surrendered the articles they had taken from Nair's home to the police. This demonstrated that they were willing to cooperate with the investigation and were "not likely to flee from justice."

. "The gravity of the offence and the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice are very important criteria for the granting of anticipatory bail. The applicants are ladies without any criminal antecedents. The fact that the applicants had, soon after the incident appeared before the Police and surrendered the articles which they had allegedly robbed is an indication to the fact that they're willing to co-operate with the investigation and are not likely to flee from justice." . In view of these observatins, their anticipatory bail application was allowed.

[YouTuber Assault case] That vigilantism could be encouraged if bail is granted is not a reason to deny bail: Kerala High Court

Lydia Suzanne Thomas

Related Stories