'Unfortunate That Father-Daughter Can't Walk On Public Road Without Being Subjected To Lewd Comments': Kerala HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday denied anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of injuring a father for questioning him and the other accused for passing lewd comments about his minor daughter. 

While hearing the matter, Justice Gopinath P. orally remarked that such incidents of father and daughter being subjected to lewd comments while walking on a public road were unfortunate. 

"It is unfortunate that a man and his daughter cannot walk together on a public road without someone making lewd comments as alleged. Such things should stop."

The allegation was that the petitioner attacked and injured the de facto complainant with a helmet for being questioned about his act of making lewd comments against the de facto complainant and his daughter while they were walking on a public road.

The petitioner argued that he was absolutely innocent in the matter and had been falsely implicated. He argued that it was the de facto complainant who attacked him and the other accused while adding that there was no allegation that the petitioner used any sort of weapon to attack the father.

Further, the petitioner defended his case submitting that there are no corresponding injuries commensurate to the allegations raised and that at any rate, the custodial interrogation was absolutely not necessary. It was pointed out that the only non-bailable offence alleged was under Section 308 of IPC, which was not attracted.

On the other hand, Senior Public Prosecutor T.R. Ranjith pointed out that when the de facto complainant was walking on the road with his 14-year old daughter, the petitioner along with the other accused started passing lewd comments asking him questions like 'where he was going with the girl' and the like.

When the de facto complainant protested against the same, he was attacked using a helmet. Therefore, he submitted that going by the contents of the First Information Statement, the offence has been committed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, the Judge took the view that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

However, it was held that if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer on or before March 30, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and that the Magistrate shall consider any application filed by the petitioner without any undue delay, having regard to the merits of the matter.

Case Title: Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145

Click Here To Read/Download The Order