Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Journalist 'Crime' Nandakumar Accused Of Verbally Abusing Woman Colleague

The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to journalist T.P Nandakumar who was arrested last month on charges of verbally abusing a former woman employee and allegedly forcing her to make a vulgar video.

Nandakumar, more commonly known as 'Crime' Nandakumar, is the chief editor of Crime Magazine.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A allowed the appeal moved by the journalist primarily because the complaint submitted by the victim did not contain details of several allegations.

"After going through the gravity of the offences, the nature of the allegations and the materials so far collected, I am of the view that the appellant can be released on bail. This is particularly because even though certain allegations against the appellant are serious in nature, on going through the written complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent, it can be seen that details of many of the allegations are not mentioned."

The Court added that although she has provided further details in her statement under Section 161 of CrPC, the absence of relevant materials in the FIR, which was registered on a written complaint submitted by her after a reasonable time which enabled her to make up her mind, is a crucial aspect to be taken note of for the purpose of bail. 

The crime was registered under Sections 294B, 506, 509 of IPC Section 3 of the SC/ST Act based on the complaint registered by the woman employee who was working under the appellant in his online channel, 'Crime Online'. Subsequently, a further report was submitted by the Police by which the offences under Sections 354A(i)(iii)(iv) of IPC, Section 3(1)(r), 3(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and Sections 66E and 67A and 84C of Information Technology Act, 2000 were incorporated.

The prosecution case is that when she was an employee, the appellant allegedly compelled her to create a video featuring fabricated nude pictures of a woman Minister of the State. When she refused to do the same, the appellant allegedly made sexually coloured remarks and lasciviously described her body in the presence of others, thereby mentally torturing her.

The appellant was thereby arrested and has been in judicial custody since June 17. Although he had applied for bail before the Special Court, this was rejected. 

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant moved the High Court. 

Advocate S.Rajeev appeared for the appellant and argued that while the victim was working in his establishment, she committed certain illegal acts along with some other persons, and he was compelled to complain about the same before the Police. The appellant argued that the present proceedings are a counterblast to the said case.

It was also alleged that the appellant is a journalist conducting an online news channel through which he interferes in sensitive issues and that he has many enemies in politics and among influential persons. It was pointed out that, on account of the same, he was continuously implicated in various criminal cases at the instance of such influential persons.

However, Special Government Pleader S.U Nazar produced details of four other cases the appellant was involved in apart from this case to highlight his criminal antecedents. It is further pointed out that though the appellant was released on bail in some of the cases, his bail was cancelled later because he violated the bail conditions as he committed similar offences at the subsequent point of time.

Advocate K.Nandini appeared for the victim and resisted the appeal and submitted that at the time of the commission of the crime, the appellant was aware that she belonged to SC/ST community. Therefore, it was contended that the appellant committed the acts with the specific knowledge of her caste status. Hence, she argued that the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act are attracted.

The Court found that going through the contents of the written complaint based on which FIR is registered, it is not explicitly stated by the defacto complainant that she was subject to harassment because of the fact that she belongs to a scheduled caste.

Further, it was noticed that going through the entire materials so far collected and available in the case diary, apart from the statement of the defacto complainant, no other materials could be collected by them to substantiate the offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the I.T. Act. 

"In this case, despite anxiously going through the entire materials, I could not find any materials indicating any such capture, publication or transmission of the image of a private area of any person." 

The Court noted that in the FIR the alleged incident is reported to have occurred between 20.04.2022 and 24.4.2022, whereas the complaint was submitted after a month.

Although the victim disputed this entry and submitted that the incidents occurred between the date on which she resigned from the appellant's establishment, the relevant entry in the FIR is otherwise. 

Similarly, the appellant has been under detention for more than 30 days. The Police were granted custody of the appellant for some time, and the search and seizure were already effected. The respondents had no case that any further recovery is to be made from the appellant.

The main apprehension voiced by the respondents appears to be the influence/threat that is likely to be caused by the appellant on the victim and other witnesses if he is released, which could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

Therefore, it was held that further incarceration of the appellant is not necessary and the appeal was thereby set aside.

Case Title: T.P Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 365

Click Here To Read/Download The Order