Kerala Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Misbehaving With Malayalam Actress Over Window Seat In Flight

A Kerala Court recently rejected the plea for anticipatory bail moved by the man accused of harassing a renowned Malayalam actress onboard an Air India flight in a dispute over occupation of the window seat. 

The Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese observed that, 

"...if bail is granted, in the light of alarming number of offences and atrocities against the women and children, that will give wrong message to the society". 

The petitioner, Anto C.R., was alleged to have misbehaved with the actress (the de facto complainant herein) while in transit from Mumbai to Cochin in an Air India flight.

The petitioner however, claimed that he was tired after attending a Techno Expo and had found comfort in the vacant window seat in 12th row of the aircraft, while his actual seat was the aisle seat of the same row. Subsequently, he heard the de facto complainant argue with the air hostess, stating that the window seat belonged to her for the duration of the journey.

The petitioner submitted that he had politely informed the air hostess that he was ready to occupy his original seat, which was occupied by his friend. However, in the meanwhile, Anto claimed that the air hostess had offered another comfortable middle seat to the actress, thereby settling the dispute. The petitioner averred that he had been surprised to find screenshots of the defacto complainant from social media the next day, alleging misbehaviour against the person who sat on his original seat.

Public Prosecutor Manoj G. krishnan opposed the bail application, and asserted that the petitioner had outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant, and verbally abused her. The counsel argued that since the investigation was in the preliminary stage, granting bail at this stage would affect the investigation into the matter. 

The Court was of the considered view that whether the petitioner would have to be arrested or not would be for the investigating officer to decide. It added that since the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary relief, the same would have to be exercised on consideration of various aspects. 

Resultantly, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed. 

Advocates Dinesh G. Warrier, Rebin Vincent Gralan, and Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 

Case Title: Anto C.R. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 2972 of 2023