
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued a pointed reprimand to renowned businessman Boby Chemmanur, who declined to leave jail despite being granted bail the previous day in a sexual harassment case brought by Malayalam actor Honey Rose.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, expressing clear discontent, admonished Chemmanur, stating, “Do not engage in theatrics before the court.”
The court mandated that Chemmanur furnish a formal justification by 12 pm for his decision to remain in custody subsequent to the issuance of bail. The judicial bench documented that the bail order was uploaded on the court’s official portal at 4:08 pm on Tuesday, with the release order following at 4:45 pm.
Consequently, the court queried, “What justified his prolonged detention beyond the issuance of the release order?”
The prosecution elucidated that Chemmanur’s legal representatives failed to submit the release order to the prison authorities, resulting in his continued detention. Furthermore, it was disclosed that Chemmanur rationalized his conduct by citing concern for fellow remand prisoners unable to secure release due to financial incapacity to post bond.
In response to this argument, Justice Kunhikrishnan categorically stated, “You (Chemmanur) are not authorized to represent the legal interests of remand prisoners. The judiciary is adequately positioned to address such matters. Desist from performing theatrics before the court.”
The judge further insinuated that Chemmanur’s behavior was orchestrated to generate media attention, commenting, “He appears to be courting publicity by withholding the release order and fabricating a narrative. On what grounds should the court refrain from revoking his bail?”
Justice Kunhikrishnan underscored that the discretionary authority exercised in granting bail encompasses the concomitant power to annul it. He asserted, “Do you (Chemmanur) consider yourself beyond the reach of the law? I retain the discretion to instruct law enforcement to detain him and expedite the investigation within a two-week period.”
Later in the morning, Chemmanur exited custody and addressed the media, reiterating his stance. He contended that numerous inmates had approached him, lamenting their inability to obtain release due to financial limitations. “They sought my assistance, and I assured them that a resolution was possible. Therefore, I opted to remain in jail for an additional day,” he explained.
In its Tuesday order granting bail, the court emphasized that societal standards unequivocally repudiate body shaming and inappropriate behavior. While sanctioning bail, Justice Kunhikrishnan acknowledged prima facie evidence that appeared to substantiate the accusations against Chemmanur.
The allegations against Chemmanur include offenses under Section 75(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for making “sexually colored remarks” and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act pertaining to the electronic dissemination of obscene material. Chemmanur was apprehended on January 8 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody on January 9.
According to Honey Rose’s complaint, during the inauguration of the Chemmanur International Jewellery showroom in Alakode, Kannur, on August 7, 2024, the businessman purportedly engaged in unwelcome conduct by placing a necklace on her and twirling her in a manner suggestive of inappropriate intent.
Chemmanur, however, has consistently repudiated the allegations, categorizing them as baseless and unfounded.