KOCHI: Businessman Boby Chemmanur on Friday approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail in the sexual harassment case registered based on the complaint filed by actor Honey Rose.
Earlier, the Ernakulam Judicial First Class Magistrate had dismissed his bail plea. The police arrested him for the offence under section 75(1)(i) and (iv) (sexual harassment ) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
According to the prosecution, during the inauguration ceremony of Chemmanur International Jewellery showroom in Kannur on August 7, 2024, the accused wore a necklace around the neck of the complainant and thereafter he made unwelcomed sexual advancement with bad intentions and twirled/rotated her.
The accused commented, "You have seen the front side of the necklace and now you should see the backside." This comment has a double meaning. The accused also commented that on seeing the complainant he is reminded of 'Kunthi Devi' which was a sexually coloured remark. The double meaning in the comments was understood by all and the offensive part was celebrated by social media.
The bail petition stated that the petitioner’s arrest was made in undue haste. Police officers were dispatched over 250 km from the station where the F.I.R. was registered, immediately after the F.I.R. was filed and even before the complainant's statement was recorded by the Magistrate. This, the petition argues, indicates that the arrest was not for investigative purposes but for extraneous reasons. The petition claims the intent behind the arrest was to damage the petitioner’s reputation, thereby causing irreparable harm to his business conglomerate and hindering his philanthropic activities.
According to the petition, one of the allegations was that the petitioner twirled/rotated the complainant during the function and this was an unwelcome sexual advancement. This allegation has no basis in truth. A survey of social media shows that during inauguration functions the complainant is in the habit of rotating or twirling during the dance, using twister machines at the gym, and taking selfie pictures with her back turned to the audience creating the illusion that she wanted them to be included in the photo which appears to be a marketing technique used by her to attract the audience. Such videos are available on public platforms like YouTube.
The allegation about the petitioner making comments about a resemblance with a character in Mahabharata is again totally unsustainable. The petitioner had specifically talked about the actress who played that role in the televised drama of Mahabaratha. It may be noted that in social media the photos of the actress who acted in the role of Kunthi Devi were published which jjustifies the comment made by the petitioner. At any rate, no criminal intent can be read into that.
The petition added that in light of the long delay in lodging the complaint, the investigating agency ought to have made detailed iinquiries as mandated by law before registering the case which is blatantly violated in this case.