In response to petitions filed by the state government and one of the complainants, the Kerala High Court on Thursday revoked the anticipatory bail given to author and social activist Civic Chandran who is facing two cases of sexual assault.
The applications were granted by Justice A Baharudeen, who also ordered the cancellation of the anticipatory bail that had been granted to Civic Chandran in two cases by Kozhikode district judge S Krishnakumar in August.
The controversial notes tying the alleged crime to the complainant’s clothing in one case and the victim’s caste in the other were later erased by the high court, which also delayed the bail decisions.
“Prima facie it appears there was an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the sessions judge while granting bail to the accused. Irrelevant materials of substantial nature are seen relied on to grant bail… The finding of the impugned order that Section will not be prima facie attracted if the victim was wearing a sexually provocative dress cannot be justified. In these circumstances, the impugned order shall stand stayed till the disposal of this petition,” the high court said in its August 24 order.
Following a wave of criticism from activists, rights organisations, and civil society over his observations in the two instances, Judge Krishnakumar was also moved to a labour court in Kollam, in south Kerala. The judge objected to the relocation on the grounds that it would have a negative effect on the morale of the court staff. His appeal was denied by a single high court bench, but the transfer was later temporarily halted by a two-judge bench.
Earlier this year, a Dalit writer and a woman publisher each filed a sexual harassment claim against 74-year-old Chandran. The court granted the author anticipatory bail in the first instance on August 2, stating that it was improbable that he would touch the woman knowing that she belonged to the scheduled caste.
In the second case, the court granted Chandran vail on August 12 but made the contentions remarks that the accusation of sexual harassment was not proven if the victim was donning “sexually provocative” clothes.
Referring to photographs of the complainant produced by Chandran’s counsel along with his bail plea, the court said the images “reveal that de facto complainant is herself exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one”. “So section 354 (A) will not stand against the accused,” Krishna Kumar added.
The Kerala government argued that the judge’s reasoning “lacked insensibility and sobriety” and that the arrest shield violated the special statute that was passed to prevent atrocities against people of the SC/ST community.