"She is camouflaging herself as a feminist", arguments in Youtuber assault case; Kerala High Court reserves order

Malayalam Film Industry dubbing artist Bhagyalakshmi and two others, Sajna N.S. (Diya Sana) and Sreelakshmi Arackal have approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for assaulting YouTuber Vijay P Nair. (Bhagyalakshmi K. v. State of Kerala).A Bench of Justice Ashok Menon has reserved judgment in the matter, allowing the three protection from arrest till then..The women rushed to Nair’s office and poured black oil on his face for his vulgar remarks against one of the women and against ‘feminists’ generally. The assault was streamed live on Facebook. After they threw black oil on his face, they left the house with his phone and laptop..The Video is still on YouTube and has gone viral with more than 2 Lakh views.They argued that they were constrained to take action against Nair after their complaints to the police elicited no response. .After their assault on Nair, they were booked under Sections 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 294 B (sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 392 (punishment for robbery), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code..In proceedings today, the Counsel for the three women, Advocate K.P. Jayachandran submitted that they had gone to Nair's house pursuant to an invitation and that they had no intention to rob him. Their lack of intention was evidenced by the fact that they surrendered Nair's laptop and phone to the police after the occurrence. He additionally stated that the assault was pursuant to an attempt by Nair to harm them physically whilst they were in his house..He joked that after the altercation with the YouTuber the Kerala Government declared an amendment to the Kerala Police Act through an Ordinance..The Prosecutor Suman Chakravarthy asserted that they barged into Nair's home and attacked him. The Prosecutor conceded that Nair had made offensive remarks against the women but stated that he had been booked for them..The preparation for the purpose of Section 452 was evidenced by the fact that they went to Nair's house with nettle oil and ink..During the proceedings to two persons sought to intervene in this matter. One person sought a denial of bail to the accused to "send a strong message to society" and the second sought the prosecution of the second accused, who supposedly carried the nettle oil and assaulted Nair.."She is camouflaging herself as a feminist", Advocate Renjith B. Marar argued, on behalf of the unnamed applicant. (Diya Sana and Sreelakshmi Arackal have described themselves as feminists and activists).Stating that it was the Court's task to ensure a correct message was sent out in society, Justice Menon stated that the intervention applications would be dismissed outright..Judgement in the original case will be pronounced on October 30..On October 9, a Thiruvananthapuram Additional Sessions Judge rejected their application for bail declaring:.“A civilized society is expected to obey the rule of law of the country so as to maintain peace, law and order and any attack to the said fabric is actionable and cannot be viewed lightly. No one can take law into their hands on the strength of man power or muscle power".Aggrieved, the three approached the High Court seeking bail stating that arrest would cause them "irreparable injury and loss of reputation"..In the proceedings before the Sessions Court, the prosecution had submitted that Nair’s remarks on women in his video were objectionable, but that people could not take the law into their own hands. Allowing them bail would send out a wrong signal, the prosecution urged the Court..The Counsel for the three women however, asserted that the attack was not ‘pre-planned’ and the women did not intend to commit a theft of Nair’s laptop or phone..Rejecting these averments, the Judge found that the woman went to meet Nair armed with nettles and black ink/oil, this demonstrated that the attack was pre-planned. Allowing bail would send out a message that might was right and that anybody could resort to vandalism to oppress their opponents.."The petitioners have committed house trespass and stealthily removed the valuable articles such as laptop, mobile phone, headset and mike owned by the de-facto complainant from his possession. In these circumstances, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners invoking Section 438 CrPC would give a wrong message to the society that anybody can resort to such vandalism so as to oppress their opponents. That apart, the principle of might is right will prevail in the society, which would bring only insecurity to the common man"..Accordingly, their application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge..Read the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing their bail application: