Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday made its earlier order allowing anticipatory bail to Indian Youth Congress President, BV Srinivas, in a sexual harassment case, absolute.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and PK Mishra was told today that Srinivas was cooperating with the investigation.

The Court in May 2023 had granted anticipatory bail to Srinivas, in the present case.

A division bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol, while allowing anticipatory bail, had said that the delay in lodging of FIR and no whisper of allegations in the statement under Section 164, CrPC by the complainant would benefit the petitioner in terms of seeking relief through the given application.

A bail bond of Rs. 50,000 was further directed to be paid by the accused.

Additional Solicitor General, SV Raju had submitted that the accused had not appeared before the National Commission for Women despite Section 41 CrPC notices.

On May 10, 2023, a petition was moved before the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail in the matter.

Earlier, the Gauhati High Court had refused Srinivas's application seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 509/294/341/352/354/354A(iv) and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Before the High Court, Srinivas had filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the whole FIR altogether. The FIR has been filed by former Assam Youth Congress president Angkita Dutta. Dutta has alleged that over the course of six months, Srinivas repeatedly harassed and abused her. 

He allegedly made disparaging remarks, used vulgar language, and threatened Dutta with punishment if she reported his behaviour to senior party leadership. Additionally, Srinivas has also been accused of heckling Dutta in a Congress session held at Raipur in February this year.

Consequently, Dutta filed an FIR for harming modesty, criminal restraint, obscenity and criminal intimidation at Dispur police station.  Charges include 509, 294, 341, 352, 354, 354A (iv), 506 of the IPC read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Appearing for Srinivas, Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhary had argued before the High Court that the alleged heckling happened in Raipur and hence the FIR in Dispur was without Jurisdiction. He also submitted that there was a lack of clarity in the FIR. According to Choudhary, the FIR did not clarify the manner and place at which alleged outraging comments were made. He termed allegations as vague, fabricated and afterthought.

Contending that allegations were a result of political vendetta, Choudhary said that criminal proceedings cannot be used as pressure tactics. Another contention raised by Choudhary was the lack of explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR.

Justice Ajit Borthakur while refusing to quash the FIR had noted that offences which continued for 6 months attracted the offences under Sections 509/294 and 506 of the IPC. 

Clearing the air around jurisdiction, the high court said that Sections 177 and 178 of CrPC are commonly used in determining the place for conducting an inquiry or trial following a police investigation. “So, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that Dispur P.S. has jurisdiction to investigate into the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner at different places viz. at Guwahati and outside of it”, high court had added.

Case Title: BV Srinivas vs. State of Assam, SLP Crl. 6210 of 2023