[Sexual Harassment Case] Woman IAF pilot moves Jammu & Kashmir High Court seeking cancellation of accused Flight Commander's anticipatory bail

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has sought responses from a Flight Commander and Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in a plea by a woman pilot at the Indian Air Force (IAF) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu to the Flight Commander in the sexual harassment case lodged against him (Ginni Chaudhary V/s M. Karpal and others)..The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar issued notice to the respondents on May 14 and directed them to submit their replies within four weeks..In her plea, the petitioner submitted that the sine qua non of filing an application for pre-arrest bail commonly called as anticipatory bail, is "apprehension of arrest in a non bailable offence". However, in the present case the Police had lodged FIR against the accused under section 354-A of of Indian Penal Code (IPC) which is a bailable offence, it said. ."The crux of the matter is that 354-A of IPC is a bailable offence and a pre arrest bail application does not lie in bailable offences therefore the Ld Principal Sessions Judge was "coram non judice" in such matters which were bailable in nature and therefore the entertaining of the bail application initially and ever after the submission of copy of FIR etc was bad in the eyes of law and therefore the Ld. Pr. Sessions Judge had proceeded illegally in the matter, thus the proceedings and orders are nullity and bad in law, thus be set aside," the petition said..The counsel for the petitioner, AK Sawhney, submitted that the pre-arrest bail order was passed by the court below in an arbitrary and mechanical manner and without even affording an opportunity of being heard to the complainant.The Sessions Judge did not even have a bare look at the contents of the complaint or seriousness, gravity of the offence and the message that would go to women who with great difficulty gather strength to fight against such sexual predators, it was contended. Accused in such offences get anticipatory bail as a matter of right from the courts below which do not show any sensitivity to offences against women. This is despite the fact that the entire country had raised its voice in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case leading to amendments in the criminal law. .However, the trial court treated the matter as a routine criminal offence and without dwelling on the contents of the complaint or the position of power of the accused/respondent, granted him anticipatory bail, Sawhney added. .The court issued notice to the respondent in the main petition as well as plea for interim relief and posted the matter for hearing next on July 15, 2021.Earlier, the woman pilot had earlier filed a petition before the High Court taking strong objection to the unfair manner of inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the Indian Air Force after she complained of sexual harassment by the Flight Commander. .That plea stated that when the harassment continued unabated, she filed a complaint with the IAF authorities on December 18, 2020.However, the official respondents did not perform the duties of an ideal employer and did not assist the petitioner to lodge any complaint or FIR with the police, it was submitted. The petitioner eventually had to report the matter to the police on her own and an FIR was lodged based on the same.Regarding the proceedings which eventually commenced before the ICC, the petitioner had claimed that the Air Force Order (AFO) under which the ICC proceedings are held, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Under this procedure, the complainant does not get the right to cross-examine the accused or his witnesses under the AFO, but she and her witnesses can be subject to cross-examination.Either the petitioner should also get the right to cross-examine the accused and his witnesses or the same right should not be extended to the accused, she had contended.The Court had in April issued notice to the Central government and Indian Air Force (IAF) officers in that plea as well. .Read more about that plea and background of the case here.