Boby Chemmanur moves Kerala High Court for bail in sexual harassment case

Businessman Boby Chemmanur, who was arrested in connection with a sexual harassment case filed against him by a Malayalam actress, has moved the Kerala High Court seeking bail [CD Boby @ Dr. Boby Chemmanur v. State of Kerala]..His first attempt at securing bail had proved unsuccessful on January 9, when the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II at Ernakulam, prima facie, rejected Chemmanur's claims that his actions were innocent. The Magistrate had opined that Chemmanur's comments about the actress were ripe with sexual innuendo. Chemmanur was, accordingly, remanded to custody for 14 days..This prompted the petition before the High Court seeking bail. Today, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan refused to grant an urgent hearing to Chemmanur and posted the matter on January 14 for the prosecutor to get instructions. Chemmanur's case is not special, the judge made it clear."There is no speciality for you. I have to give the prosecution time to get instructions. Every bail application that is posted here usually gets four days time for the public prosecutor to get instructions. This will get usual treatment. I will hear it on Tuesday," the judge said. .Justice Kunhikrishnan also orally suggested that Chemmanur's counsel, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai, advise his client to exercise restraint while making statements in public. "In the meantime, you instruct your client to be careful while making comments in public. It is insulting," the judge said."I assure you, I will convince him of that," Pillai responded. .The actress in her complaint has accused Chemmanur of making inappropriate comments to her during an inaugural function for a jewellery store owned by the businessman.As per her complaint, 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 to deprecate 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 were 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 five months after the incident to file the complaint.It was also submitted that any evidence to be collected in this case was easily available in the public domain, making his remand unnecessary.However, these arguments failed to find favor with the Magistrate who dismissed Chemmanur's plea for bail and remanded him to custody."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' (check out the back of the necklace once more). 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 Magistrate's order stated..After the verdict was read out in Court, Chemmanur reportedly fainted and complained of health issues. He was allowed to rest in Court for a while before he was taken for a medical check-up at a hospital. He was later taken to the Kakkanad District Jail. .In his petition before the High Court, Chemmanur has reiterated his arguments before the Magistrate. He has also claimed that his arrest from Wayanad was done in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. It is further alleged that the Magistrate who heard his bail application was the same Magistrate who recorded the statement of the actress. This has caused him grave prejudice, Chemmanur has argued. "The recording of the statement by the self same magistrate constitutes an ex parte communication, where the magistrate receives information from one party without the other party’s knowledge or presence. The magistrate’s alleged recording of the statement in the chamber with the alleged victim may give the impression of bias of predisposition against the accused. The accused is denied opportunity to respond to or challenge the alleged victim’s statement, potentially leading to an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of the facts," the petition reads. On these, among other grounds, Chemmanur has sought bail from the High Court. .Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocates MR Dhanil, Geo Paul, Sujesh Menon VB, Senitta P Jojo, Vidhuna Narayanan and T Anil Kumar are representing Chemmanur.