'Lower Court Was More Concerned With Societal Impact, Not Purpose Of Custody': Kerala HC Grants Bail To YouTuber Accused Of Insulting ST Woman
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by a YouTuber, who allegedly insulted a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe through an interview published on social media, and enlarged him on bail.Earlier this month, a Sessions Court in Kerala had dismissed his bail plea on the ground that he had intentionally telecasted the video to humiliate the woman and enlarging him...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by a YouTuber, who allegedly insulted a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe through an interview published on social media, and enlarged him on bail.
Earlier this month, a Sessions Court in Kerala had dismissed his bail plea on the ground that he had intentionally telecasted the video to humiliate the woman and enlarging him on bail would send a wrong message to society.
Justice Mary Joseph, while granting bail, observed that the Lower Court was more concerned with the impact on society rather than on the purpose served by prolonging the custody.
While declining bail the court below was much concerned of the impact, grant of bail would cause in the society, rather than the purpose served by prolonging the custody.
Said to be provoked by the arrest of a friend and fellow media person TP Nandakumar, accused of verbally abusing a woman and forcing her to make a morphed video of a lady minister, the Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of an online news channel 'True TV', telecasted an interview of the woman's husband and father-in-law on his channel. The interview was uploaded on YouTube and widely circulated on Facebook.
When the matter came before the Court, the Counsel appearing for the appellant, Advocates Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Jayaraman S, Nirmal Cheriyan Varghese and Litty Peter, submitted that the appellant had been in custody for the last 25 days, his office was raided by the investigating agency and materials relating to the crime were seized. The Counsels contended that the appellant, having served enough days in custody, is entitled to bail.
The Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, Advocate Nandini, averred that the broadcasting of the interview humiliated the defacto complainant before the public, and her children were prevented from appearing in public and also attending school, and if bail is granted to the Appellant, the same thing would be repeated, and the defacto complainant and her children would be insulted and humiliated further among the public.
Public Prosecutor also canvassed for dismissal of the Appeal on the ground that Appellant has criminal antecedents.
The High Court noted that a complaint was lodged against the Appellant but the same was later withdrawn, stating that a civil remedy would be pursued.
"Filing of a complaint by one person against the appellant and later on withdrawing therefrom for pursuing with civil remedies cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent. The appellant being a man involved in offences of this nature for the first time and having served custody, both judicial as well as under police altogether for 25 days, there is nothing wrong in enlarging him on bail now," it said.
The earlier application for bail filed by the appellant was rejected as it was filed at an early stage of the investigation, observed the Court.
It directed that the Appellant be released subject to executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties.
Appellant is directed to not disturb the peaceful life of the defacto complainant and her children and maintain distance from her area of residence and workplace. He is also restrained from broadcasting any news item which is harmful and humiliative of the defacto complainant and her children.
Case Title: Sooraj V. Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 448