Kerala sexual harassment case | Why denial of bail to Boby Chemmanur is grabbing spotlight

A Kerala court’s decision to deny bail to businessman Boby Chemmanur and the High Court’s subsequent refusal to expedite the hearing of his second bail application has drawn significant attention, particularly on account of serious allegations of sexual harassment made against him by actress Honey Rose.

The case, which has garnered widespread media coverage, raises important questions about the intersection of celebrity, legal proceedings, and public perception.

Boby Chemmanur was arrested on January 9, 2025, following a complaint filed by Honey Rose, who alleged that Chemmanur made inappropriate remarks and unwanted physical advances during the inauguration of his jewellery showroom in Kannur on August 7, 2024. According to Rose's complaint, Chemmanur not only made sexually coloured comments but also held her hand without consent during the event. The allegations include remarks that were interpreted as double entendres, such as referring to her rear body.

Also read: Kerala sexual harassment case: Businessman Boby Chemmanur sent to judicial custody

Prima facie case

The charges against Chemmanur includes Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to sexual harassment, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act concerning the transmission of obscene material. His arrest has been dubbed by his legal team as hasty and unjustified, claiming he was wrongfully implicated and asserting that he had cooperated fully with the investigation.

Denying him bail, the Ernakulam Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, cited a “well-established prima facie case” against him, noting that there was sufficient evidence indicating that he had made unwanted physical contact and sexually coloured remarks towards Rose. The court emphasised that a thorough examination of evidence would be necessary to fully assess the situation but found enough grounds to remand him to judicial custody for 14 days.

“The petitioner/accused has made physical contact and advances at the informant without her consent and indeed made remarks that are prima facie sexually coloured. The quality of the informant’s consent and the word-by-word scrutiny of the remarks and comments made by the accused can only be done after proper appreciation of evidence,” read the court order. The court also observed that “the accused is a highly affluent businessman who has the capability to influence and intimidate the witnesses involved in this case.”

‘Remarks misinterpreted’

During the court proceedings, Chemmanur's defense argued that his comments were misinterpreted and did not warrant criminal charges. They contended that the complainant had previously maintained a friendly demeanour towards him after the alleged incidents and highlighted her social media posts celebrating their acquaintance. However, the court dismissed these arguments, asserting that such defenses did not negate the seriousness of the allegations.

Advocates for victims of sexual harassment emphasise the importance of believing survivors and holding alleged perpetrators accountable regardless of their social standing.

“The arguments presented by the accused reflect the same tactics seen in public discourse — victim-blaming and trivialising complaints. However, the prosecution effectively highlighted the gravity of the charges, the accused’s history, and the potential for witness tampering. The court’s observation that such actions, even verbal, can amount to sexual harassment is crucial in redefining boundaries of acceptable behaviour. This case also underscores the importance of the complainant’s voice being heard at every stage. Ultimately, it reaffirms faith in a legal system that holds even the most powerful accountable. Justice, like cinema, works the best when it reflects the realities of society,” opined C Shukkur, a lawyer cum Malayalam film actor.

Also read: Kerala: Who is Boby Chemmanur, accused of sexual misconduct by actress Honey Rose?

Major implications

“The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications not only for Chemmanur but also for public attitudes toward sexual harassment claims in India. As discussions continue around consent, power dynamics in relationships, and societal responses to allegations of misconduct, this case serves as a critical touchpoint for ongoing debates about justice and equity,” added the lawyer.

Chemmanur has since moved to appeal for bail before the Kerala High Court, which has postponed its hearing until January 14, 2025. Refusing an urgent hearing requested by the accused, the court has called for a response from the state government regarding Chemmanur’s bail plea and expressed concerns about expediting this case while also addressing other pending matters.

As Chemmanur’s legal battle unfolds in the coming weeks, it will be essential to observe how this case influences public discourse on sexual harassment and how it may reshape expectations around accountability for those in positions of power.