- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Kerala HC Grants Bail To...
Kerala HC Grants Bail To Businessman Boby Chemmanur in Sexual Harassment Case, Says Bail Will Be Cancelled If Similar Offence Is Committed
Manju Elsa Isac
14 Jan 2025 10:56 AM
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (14th January) granted bail to Boby Chemmanur in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam Movie actress. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2013) which said that bail shall be granted if the maximum sentence for the offence is less than 7 year. The Court had said that the petitioner shall not commit an offence...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (14th January) granted bail to Boby Chemmanur in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam Movie actress. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2013) which said that bail shall be granted if the maximum sentence for the offence is less than 7 year. The Court had said that the petitioner shall not commit an offence of the similar nature, or otherwise, the bail will be cancelled.
Boby Chemmanur was booked under Section 75 (Sexual Harassment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 (publishing or transmission of obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act on allegation of sexually harassing the complainant during the inauguration of one of his jewellery stores at Kannur. The complainant said that this was followed by other sexually coloured remarks on YouTube and other social media platforms.
Boby was arrested on 8th January and was on the next day remanded to judicial custody for 14 days by the Ernakulam Magistrate Court.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan while granting bail observed that there was a prima facie case against the petition.
“Prima facie I am of the opinion that that there are ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is using words with double meanings. Any Malayalee who reads the First Information Statement can easily understand all the words used by the petitioner are with double meanings. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that prima facie, the ingredients of the offences are attracted."
The Court also observed that body shaming is not acceptable in the society.
“Before concluding, I am forced to say 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. I leave it there."
During the hearing on Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor had vehemently opposed granting bail to the petitioner saying that this sends a message to society.
“But this has a message to the society also, My Lordship…. He claims that he has large number of followers. Now it reached a situation where acts of the petitioner is acceptable to the public also. They are having an impression that anybody can post anything about another person without any basis."
The prosecutor went on to submit one of the videos allegedly posted by the petitioner explaining one of his comments made about the actress. The Court after watching the video remarked that what he said had 'double meaning'.
“What is this if not 'double meaning'”
Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner also submitted a video saying that the actress had no complaint when the incident occurred. The Court however, rejected that argument.
“That shows her decency. She didn't want to create a scene in the function.”
The Court had noted that in the bail petition, it was mentioned that nobody has a claim that the complainant has exceptional talent or has won recognition from society as an actor, singer, musician, sportswoman or professional in any field. The Court said that the petitioner need not take vakalth of other citizens regarding the recognition of the complainant. Accordingly, the counsel of the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing the ground.
The Court said that the victim/ prosecution can approach the court to cancel the bail if any of the bail conditions is violated.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates B. Raman Pillai (Sr.), M. R. Dhanil, Sujesh Menon V. B., Senitta P. Jojo, Vidhuna Narayanan, T. Anil Kumar, Geo Paul
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Noushad K. A. (Sr. PP)
Case No: BA 535/ 2025
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Click Here To Read/ Download Order