‘In Public Place, You Are Teasing Young Girl?’: Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Sexual Harassment Accused In FIR U/S 354 IPC

first_imgTop Stories’In Public Place, You Are Teasing Young Girl?’: Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Sexual Harassment Accused In FIR U/S 354 IPC Mehal Jain1 Dec 2020 10:54 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the plea for anticipatory bail to an accused in a case of eve-teasing, where FIR under section 354, IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) had come to be registered.The bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao was hearing a SLP against the January 21 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing anticipatory bail…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the plea for anticipatory bail to an accused in a case of eve-teasing, where FIR under section 354, IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) had come to be registered.The bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao was hearing a SLP against the January 21 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with the FIR in case under Sections 354, 506 (criminal intimidation), 341 (wrongful restraint), 34 IPC. “In fact, it is a case wherein a young girl, who was accompanied by her family members was subjected to eve-teasing and indecent remarks. As per the allegations in the FIR, when the petitioner was misbehaving and passing inappropriate remarks, he was confronted by the complainant, however, he did not even hesitate to reveal his name and address and threatened the complainant to do whatever he wanted to”, the High Court had noted in the impugned judgment.”It is a case under sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) at best. Not 354 simpliciter. These offences are all bailable. 354 has been added only to make the whole transaction non-bailable. There was no danger of bodily harm, no criminal force or assault. At most, there may have been some indecent remarks”, it was urged by the counsel for the petitioner on Tuesday.”In a public place in Jalandhar, you are teasing a young girl, threatening her family? Make your arguments at the time of regular bail. You are not entitled to anticipatory bail!”, observed the bench, also comprising Justice Hemant Gupta.Ultimately, the bench dismissed the SLP.Next Storylast_img read more