Kerala High Court: In a bail application filed by businessman Boby Chemmanur (‘Boby’) in a sexual harassment case filed against him under Sections 75(1)(i) and 75(1)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (‘IT Act’), the Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., granted him bail upon furnishing of a bond worth Rs 50,000.
While granting bail, the Court reiterated that for offences which were punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years or which extended to seven years with or without fine, the accused could not be arrested by the Police Officer without sufficient reasons. The Court also reiterated the principle that bail was the rule and the jail was the exception. Further, the Court observed that body shaming was not acceptable in our society, and everybody should be vigilant while making comments about others, whether they were men or women.
Background
Allegedly, at the inauguration of the Chemmannur International Jewellers Showroom, Boby sexually harassed the complainant, who was invited as a guest for the event. Boby adorned the complainant with a necklace in front of many people, held her hand without consent, and twirled her around.
On the same day, allegedly, Boby made other sexually coloured remarks about the complainant. After the said incident, the complainant refused to participate in events where Boby was involved. Disgruntled by this, Boby allegedly made several sexually coloured remarks about the complainant on various YouTube channels and other social media platforms. Hence, a First Information Statement (‘FIS’) was registered against him under Sections 75(1)(i) and 75(1)(iv) of BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act. Consequently, he was arrested, and the present application was filed.
Analysis
The Court opined that prima facie, there were ingredients to attract the offences alleged against Boby, and he had used words with double meanings. The Court noted that in the bail application, Boby narrated his achievements, social activities, and celebrity status while stating, as one of the grounds, that the complainant did not have any exceptional talent or had won recognition from society in any field. Noting this, the Court said that Boby did not need to take vakkalath of other citizens about the complainant’s recognition in the society.
Regarding the question of whether Boby could be released on bail, the Court stated that the maximum punishment under 75(1)(i) of BNS was three years, fine, or both, under Section 75(1)(iv) of BNS it was one year, fine, or both, and lastly under Section 67 of IT Act was three years for the first offence. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on the case Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Supreme Court held that the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which might be less than seven years or which might extend to seven years with or without fine, the accused could not be arrested by the Police Officer without sufficient reasons. Thus, the Court held that Boby could be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
The Court also stated that “body shaming is not acceptable in our society. Comments about the body of a person as too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall, too dark, too black, etc., should be avoided. There is a sense that we are all “too something”, and we are all “not enough”. This is life. Our bodies will change, our minds will change, and our hearts will change. Everybody should be vigilant while making comments about others, whether they are men or women.”
Further, the Court reiterated the principle that bail was the rule and the jail was the exception. In this regard, the Court relied on the cases P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) 10 SCC 574, and Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.
Thus, the Court allowed the application and granted bail to Boby subject to execution of a bond worth Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Court further imposed the following conditions:
-
Boby shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.
-
He shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer.
-
He shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he was accused or suspected.
Lastly, the Court directed that violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would result in cancellation of the bail by the Trial Court.
[C.D. Boby v. State of Kerala, Bail Application No. 535 of 2025, decided on 14-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, M.R. Dhanil, Sujesh Menon V.B., Senitta P. Jojo, Vidhuna Narayanan, T. Anil Kumar, and Geo Paul
For the respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A.
