A Mumbai Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of two men who were charged with outraging the modesty of women.
The allegations against them involved repeatedly asking their female colleagues out and making comments about their physical appearance, specifically complimenting their figures.
Additional Session Judge AZ Khan concluded that custodial interrogation was essential and therefore denied relief to the accused in separate cases.
The incidents in question transpired when two female executives of a real estate company lodged complaints against their sales managers. According to the complaint, the managers purportedly made the following statements:
“Madam, aapne khudko bahut maintain rakha hai. . . aapka figure bahut achcha hai… kya ma’am, mere saath bahar jaane ke baare mai kuch socha ki nahi? (Madam, you have maintained yourself. . . your figure is very beautiful… have you thought about going out with me)?”
The two managers involved in the case were charged under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to outraging the modesty of a woman, sexual harassment, stalking, and intentional insult to the modesty of a woman, respectively. Subsequently, the managers sought anticipatory bail from the sessions court.
According to Additional Session Judge AZ Khan, the allegations of outraging modesty and using vulgar language towards the complainants within the workplace were considered as a serious matter.
“No doubt, the offence is serious and against the woman wherein the present applicant/accused along with the other accused alleged to have been outraged the modesty and uttered such filthy language towards the complainant on the working place and tried to pressurize the complainant and employers,” the order reads.
The Court held that there were several aspects involved in the present case and hence custodial interrogation of the accused would be required.
“There are several aspects involved in the present case whereby the custodial interrogation of the present applicant/accused is indeed essential otherwise the right to interrogate the present applicant/accused by the investigation Officer would be taken away which would certainly affect the case of the prosecution & ultimately the case of the complainant on merit,” the session judge stated.
