Kerala News

State Govt against Civic Chandran’s anticipatory bail

According to the state administration, Civic Chandra’s second molestation case court comments are demeaning. The state government filed a High Court appeal against the judge’s ruling granted anticipatory bail to Civic. The government said in the appeal that Civic Chandran had previously committed other similar offences.

Concerned by the complainant’s comments on the complainant’s clothing, the state government went before the High Court. Remarks on women were made by the Sessions Court. Each person is free to choose what to dress and how to wear it. The government asserts in the appeal that Sessions Judge S Krishnakumar’s remarks were irrational.

In the first molestation case appeal that Atijeevitha had brought, the High Court had served Civic Chandran with a notice. The anticipatory bail in the sexual assault case is under scrutiny according to the notice. Athijeevitha had been questioned by the Kozhikode Principal Sessions Court on these remarks. The state government also appealed Civic Chandran’s anticipatory bail to the High Court. Next Monday, the High Court will hear Atijeevitha’s appeal once more.

The government had made it clear that the observations made by the sessions court in the bail ruling were improper. The SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is violated by the observation. To learn the truth, the accused must be put into custody. The government had also mentioned in the appeal that the complainant’s mental anguish was what caused the delay in registering the case.

Controversial was Judge S Krishna Kumar’s ruling that a woman from a Scheduled Caste should not have been subjected to sexual assault. Civic Chandran is an advocate for a caste-free society and has rejected his caste. The Kozhikode Principal Sessions Court made contentious comments regarding the complainant’s attire, saying that the section for the prevention of atrocities against Scheduled Tribes could not be applied to the case. The complainant was dressed in sexually suggestive attire, the court said.

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *