On Thursday, the Gauhati High Court denied the Youth Congress President Srinivas BV’s request for anticipatory bail and declined to drop the First Information Report (FIR) against him for insulting the modesty of expelled Assam Youth Congress leader Angkita Dutta.
According to the victim’s claim, the Congress leader heckled the victim on February 25 at a hotel in Raipur during the Congress party’s plenary session, single-judge Justice Ajit Borthakur stated. He insulted her with slangs, threatening to damage her party career if she brought up the mistreatment in front of senior Congress party officials.
“As per the victim’s allegation, besides various humiliating verbatim the petitioner uttered the words “Aye ladki ye tum kiya likhti rehti ho ye sab? Tum kiya piti rehti ho, vodka piti ho ya tequila piti rehti ho (Hey girl, what are you always writing? What do you keep drinking, vodka or tequila),” the court observed.
The Court determined that these statements considered together appear to satisfy the criteria of Sections 352 (assault or criminal force), 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty), and 354A (1)(iv) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with sexual harassment.
It added that the FIR’s accusations of criminal intimidation would apply to the alleged harassment, which included the victim being threatened not to report his misconduct to top party members and making repeated sexist remarks using slang expressions. The bench was informed of the Congressman’s petition to dismiss the FIR filed against him as a result of a complaint made by his former female coworker.
The ex-Congreewoman asserted in her complaint that he repeatedly verbally abused her, using sexist jokes and jargon, and intimidated her with serious repercussions if she revealed this to senior Congress Party figures.
Furthermore, she claimed that the accused heckled her at the hotel’s entrance while he held her arms and attacked her with slang terms during the Congress Party’s plenary meeting on March 25 at the Mayfair Hotel in Raipur. She further reported that nothing was done about his behaviour despite her notifying senior Congress party personnel about it.
The Rahul Gandhi loyalist, however, claimed that the FIR was brought against him in order to settle political scores. In order to personally appear before the officers looking into the complaint, he pitched for interim relief, which is to stay the notifications sent to him by the Dispur Police.
In its ruling, the bench rejected the contention that the victim filed the FIR to make amends for both personal and political grievances.
The bench noted, “There is no indication in the case diary that the FIR is politically motivated and based on some false and concocted story. The nature of offences disclosed in the FIR are crimes against society being basically pertaining to outraging of the modesty of woman. Therefore, at the present stage of the investigation, this Court cannot scrutinize the correctness or veracity of those allegations.”
Regarding the allegation that there was a delay in filing the FIR and that Youth Congress had brought defamation charges against the victim, the judge ruled that this was an internal political party matter and notrelated to the inquiry.
The bench rejected both, the request to quash the FIR after making these observations and his request for anticipatory bail in a different judgement.
Angkita Dutta was expelled from the primary membership of the Congress for six years for ‘anti-party activities.’ Soon after her complaint of being sexually harassed by Srinivas BV, Tariq Anwar, member-secretary of the Congress’ disciplinary action committee, mentioned, “Congress president has expelled Dr Angkita Dutta, president, Assam Pradesh Youth Congress, from the primary membership of the party for six years for her anti-party activities with immediate effect,” in an order.
Earlier on 27 April, the Gauhati High Court had rejected denied interim relief to Youth Congress national president Srinivas BV in the sexual harassment case. Before the petitioner’s interim request was taken into consideration, Justice Ajit Borthakur noted that a review of the case diary, including the victim woman’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was absolutely necessary for a fair decision.