9 Oct 2020 10:35 AM GMT
A Kerala Court on Friday denied anticipatory bail to dubbing artist Bhagyalakshmi and two other women - Diya Sana and Sreelakshmi Arackal - who were accused of assaulting a man who had published a YouTube video with vulgar comments about them."A civilized society is expected to obey the rule of law of the country so as to maintain peace, law and order and any attack to the said fabric...
A Kerala Court on Friday denied anticipatory bail to dubbing artist Bhagyalakshmi and two other women - Diya Sana and Sreelakshmi Arackal - who were accused of assaulting a man who had published a YouTube video with vulgar comments about them.
"A civilized society is expected to obey the rule of law of the country so as to maintain peace, law and order and any attack to the said fabric is actionable and cannot be viewed lightly. No one can take law into their hands on the strength of man power or muscle power", observed Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in the order.
The case relates to the attack made by the three accused against one Vijay P Nair, a YouTuber with a considerable number of followers, who is known for making derogatory and obscene videos about women.
The attack happened on September 26, when the accused barged into the office of Vijay Nair and slapped him, abused him, and poured black oil on his face for making vulgar comments against one of them in particular and 'feminists' in general. They also live-streamed the visuals of the attack via Facebook Live. Further, they took away his laptop and the mobile phone. The women said that they were constrained to resort to the drastic step as the complaint filed before police against Vijay Nair's video failed to elicit any response.
The videos of the attack became viral sparking off intense debates in social media over the correctness of their response.
After the attack, the women were booked by Thampanoor police on a complaint by Vijay Nair under IPC Sections 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 294 B (sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 392 (punishment for robbery), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of the Indian Penal code).
The lawyer for the accused, Advocate K P Jayachandran, submitted that the videos of Vijay Nair were extremely obscene and that the attack was not pre-planned. He further argued that there was no intention to commit theft of the laptop, mobile phone etc, of the YouTuber and that they were voluntarily surrendered by the accused before the police.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Prosecutor N C Priyan, while acknowledging that Vijay Nair's videos crossed all limits of decency, opposed the bail applications of the women by arguing that granting them relief would send a wrong signal to the society.
Accepting the Prosecutor's arguments, Sessions Judge N Seshadrinathan said :
"The petitioners have committed house trespass and stealthily removed the valuable articles such as laptop, mobile phone, headset and mike owned by the de-facto complainant from his possession. In these circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners invoking Section 438 CrPC would give a wrong message to the society that anybody can resort to such vandalism so as to oppress their opponents. That apart, the principle of might is right will prevail in the society, which would bring only insecurity to the common man".
The Court said that the attack was pre-planned and the accused committed house-trespass with a clear intention to cause hurt.
"The petitioners have brought a nettle plant whose contact would cause itching on the human body. Petitioners' intention is thus clear. They also brought an ink bottle so as to pour on him and thereby humiliate him by capturing the incident and they published the same through social and other media immediately after the attack with a malafide intention", the Court noted.
Vijay Nair was also arrested in another FIR for offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, for posting obscene videos and is under custody at present.
Click Here To Download Order