Mumbai court denies bail to two men booked for outraging modesty after repeatedly asking out female colleagues, passing comments

A Mumbai court recently denied anticipatory bail to two men booked for the offence of outraging the modesty of woman after they allegedly told two of their female colleagues that she they have beautiful figure and repeatedly asked them out.

A sessions court at Dindoshi refused to grant relief to the two individuals in two different cases, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary.

The facts of the two cases arose after two female executives of a real estate company complained against their sales managers. 

The complaint stated that their managers allegedly stated,

“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 were booked under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The managers moved for anticipatory bail before the sessions court.

Additional Session Judge AZ Khan opined that allegations of outraging modesty and uttering filthy language towards complainants in work place was serious. 

“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 said.

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 Court held.

Advocate Akshay Shetty appeared for accused.

Additional public prosecutor IK Shaikh appeared for State.

[Read Orders]