The appeal filed by the State through Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan, contended that the Session Court order granting bail is against the facts and circumstances of the case, thus amounting to an infringement of the personal liberty of the survivor and violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“The court below relied heavily on certain photographs of the victim which was published in social media and observed that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative and therefore Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused. The above finding is per se illegal, unjust and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma” the appeal stated.
Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat & ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh in which it was held that the dress, behavior, or past “conduct” or “morals” of the procesutrix, should not be considered while granting bail.
It was further stated that the court below flouted all the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and granted pre-arrest bail to the accused by making observations which have been deprecated by superior courts.
Moreover, it was submitted that sexually provocative dressing of a victim cannot be construed as a legal ground for absolving an accused from the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman, which is highly insensitive and insulting.
Source: Barandbench
