The Allahabad High Court, while denying bail to a person accused of rape, remarked that women artists often face exploitation and sexual harassment and that any women, regardless of their profession, should not be reduced to an object of lust or be subjected to any form of abuse.

The Court was hearing an application for bail filed by a person accused of rape, trespass and criminal intimidation by an orchestra singer and dancer. The allegation was that he entered the complainant's house at night and molested her.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed, "This Court is of the view that women artists, who use to perform as a singer or dancer in orchestra parties are also deserve respect and they have right to live with dignity. Unfortunately, many women artists often face exploitation and sexual harassment, because they are sometime seen with different mind set/ perception in the society, which undermines their basic human right."

Advocates Ashwani Tripathi appeared for the applicant and Additional Government Advocate Deepak Mishra appeared for the Respondent.

On the present case, the Court said, "In the case in hand involving the sexual exploitation of victim who is dancer of an orchestra party by the organizer is a grim reminder of perverse gender sexual violence in the society. Any women artist regardless of their field of performance, should never be reduced to an object of lust or subjected to any form of abuse".

"The dignity of artists lies in their art, therefore it is the responsibility of organizer that work place and environment of women artist is safe and respectful. It is duty of all to create an environment where every artist can perform and express themselves freely without fear and intimidation because they are torchbearers of culture, creativity and expression in society.," the Court said.

The complainant was a singer and dancer in an orchestra, which is a group of performers including dancers and singers in musical settings providing live music for the events or parties. The applicant, "who is a man of criminal nature," as the Court notes, used to visit the place wherever she went to perform in the orchestra.

On the day of the alleged incident, the applicant came to her house in a drunken state and molested her. When the complainant raised alarm, the applicant and his friend, who allegedly made a video of the incident, ran away. Thereafter, it is claimed that he called her and threatened her that if she informs the police about the said incident, he will rape and eliminate her.

The applicant was booked under Sections 64 (Rape), 332(b) (House-trespass in order to commit offence), 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case and that the complainant had borrowed some money from him, which she didn't return. The state counsel reiterated the prosecution's case and informed the Court of the past criminal cases in which the accused is involved.

Upon hearing both sides, the Court said that the defence set up by the applicant does not corroborate from any material on record. It added, "This Court is also of the view that the statement of the victim is a preliminary consideration for deciding the bail application. I also find that there is no contradiction in the F.I.R. version as well as in the statements under Section 180 and 183 BNSS of the victim to vitiate the prosecution case."

At the present stage, the Court said, it found no ground to presume that the statement of the victim is false and so far as the defence of the applicant is concerned, it was a matter of trial.

Denying bail to the accused, the Court said it considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, the gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant and severity of punishment.

The Court clarified, "It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial."

Cause Title: Manish Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 42757 of 2024]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ashwani Tripathi and Om Prakash Shukla

Respondent: Additional Government Advocate Deepak Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Sanjay Kumar SinghAllahabad High Court

Tushar Kohli