It’s the women who are subjected to ignominy and a man is not going to lose anything: HC

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday declined to interfere, at present, in the investigation against a Bharatiya Janata Party worker, who is among the accused persons facing charges of circulating obscene clips, related to “morphed” images and videos clips related to Prajwal Revanna, former Hassan MP, in public domain through pen drives and other modes.

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday declined to interfere, at present, in the investigation against a Bharatiya Janata Party worker, who is among the accused persons facing charges of circulating obscene clips, related to “morphed” images and videos clips related to Prajwal Revanna, former Hassan MP, in public domain through pen drives and other modes.

“Any person who has done it [circulation of obscene clips of women], has done a sin. Whoever has done it, they have portrayed every women in poor light. The most dangerous thing for any person who has done this is that you have portrayed women in poor light. You don’t know the circumstances under which they have happened. A man is not going to lose anything, it is the women who are subjected to ignominy...”, the court observed.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations orally while adjourning the hearing on the petition filed by Sharath, a resident of Hassan and a BJP worker.

Earlier Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), referring to investigation papers, told the court that certain electronic gadgets related to the petitioner were seized but the petitioner’s advocate claimed that no material was seized under mahazar and there was no prima facie material to show involvement of the petitioner in circulation of obscene video clips.

When the court suggested to the petitioner to appear for investigation before the police, the APP said that the petitioner appeared to be abroad now. However, the petitioner’s advocate claimed that he [petitioner] was very much in Hassan but he could not contact him as his phone was switched off as he apprehended arrest.

As the petition was filed questioning the registration of a criminal case, the court said that it could not grant anticipatory bail in this proceedings while asking the petitioner’s advocate to approach the appropriate court seeking necessary relief.

Also, Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that no interim protection could be granted to the petitioner at present while asking his advocate to move the petition after availing other legal remedy available to him.