Chennai: The High Court has directed the Tiruvottiyur Judicial Magistrate to explain how bail was granted the very next day to a friend who had been arrested in connection with uploading a student’s sexual videos on the internet, after bail had initially been denied.
In the Tiruvottiyur area, a 18-year-old college student was sexually assaulted by her friend. The friend’s female companion and another friend recorded it on video and uploaded it on social media.
In this regard, based on the complaint filed by the student’s father, Tiruvottiyur police registered a case against three people and arrested the concerned friend on June 2 last month. His bail petition was dismissed by the Tiruvottiyur Judicial Magistrate Court on June 4 last month.
Accepting the bail petition that was filed again on the same day, bail was granted to him on June 5. Moreover, the order regarding the grant of bail has not been uploaded on the website. It has also not been sent to the concerned police station.
In this situation, since his daughter’s sexual video had spread across more than 40 pornographic websites, the father of the affected student filed a petition in the Chennai High Court seeking immediate action to stop it and protect his daughter’s life, and requesting an order to take action against the person who ruined his daughter’s life.
The hearing on this petition was held before Justice V. Lakshmi Narayanan. At that time, the police stated that the relevant obscene video had been removed from 25 websites, that it could not be removed from 17 websites, and that efforts were nevertheless being made to remove them.
Blocking order: The judge, expressing dissatisfaction with it, ordered the Central Government to remove the video from the remaining 17 websites by Oct. 5, and if it could not be removed, to block those websites altogether.
Similarly, in this case, since an FIR has been registered by the police under serious sexual offense charges, the judge has ordered that the Tiruvottiyur Judicial Magistrate explain how bail was granted in such haste the very next day after denying bail to the person involved in the sexual offense, why the legal rule requiring notice to be served on the opposing party at least 3 days before hearing a bail petition was not followed, and why the order granting bail was not uploaded online for 4 months, and has adjourned the hearing to Oct. 5.
