Today(on 4th September), The Kerala High Court has closed Ranjith Balakrishnan’s anticipatory bail plea, noting that the alleged sexual harassment offence under Section 354 IPC was bailable in 2009. Justice CS Dias highlighted that Section 354 became non-bailable only in 2013.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Thiruvananthapuram: Today(on 4th September), The Kerala High Court has closed the anticipatory bail plea of renowned Malayalam film director Ranjith Balakrishnan, who had been booked under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged sexual harassment. The court’s decision comes after it noted that the alleged offence in question, committed in 2009, was a bailable offence at the time.
Justice CS Dias, presiding over the matter, was informed that Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) had only been made a non-bailable offence in 2013. Thus, considering the timing of the alleged incident, the authorities stated that the police would treat Ranjith’s case as bailable.
“The case pertains to the year 2009,”
– explained the prosecution, highlighting that, at the time, the offence was still a bailable one.
As a result, Ranjith would not require the court’s permission to secure his bail, and the police could proceed with his release.
With this clarification, the court officially closed the plea filed by Ranjith seeking anticipatory bail. Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu represented Ranjith during the proceedings, while Government Pleader Hrithwik appeared on behalf of the state.
Allegations Following Justice Hema Committee Report
The sexual harassment case against Ranjith surfaced shortly after the release of the highly anticipated Justice Hema Committee Report on August 19, 2024. This report brought to light widespread allegations of sexual misconduct and casting couch practices within the Malayalam film industry. Among the numerous accusations that emerged from the report’s findings was the case filed by a Bengali actress, who accused Ranjith of attempting to molest her during a film discussion in 2009.
The actress, whose identity remains undisclosed, alleged that during a meeting at Ranjith’s flat in Ernakulam, the director made inappropriate advances towards her. She claimed to have managed to escape from the situation and later shared her ordeal with a scriptwriter. In her statement, she noted that she was unable to take legal action at the time due to logistical challenges and the lack of necessary support. However, after the public release of the Justice Hema Committee Report, she felt empowered to speak up about her experience.
The actress explained-
“I chose to share my experience with the media following the release of the report.”
In response to the media’s coverage of her allegations and the ensuing public outcry, she formally lodged a complaint with the Kochi City Police Commissioner via email. An FIR was subsequently registered, accusing Ranjith of violating Section 354 IPC.
Ranjith’s Resignation and Denial of Allegations
In the wake of these accusations, Ranjith promptly resigned from his post as the chairperson of the Kerala Chalachithra Academy, a decision that added further fuel to the public debate surrounding the allegations. Despite stepping down from his position, Ranjith has consistently denied all claims of misconduct. He maintains that the accusations are entirely baseless and part of a larger conspiracy.
ALSO READ: [Sexual Assault Case] Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Prajwal Revanna
According to his legal team, Ranjith’s primary defense is centered around the fact that the alleged incident occurred in 2009, during which time Section 354 IPC was a bailable offence. In his plea, Ranjith argued-
“At the time of the alleged offence, the crime under Section 354 IPC was bailable.”
Furthermore, Ranjith contended that the actress’s complaint was driven by resentment after she was not chosen for a role in his movie “Palerimanikyam.” He also alleged that she was being instigated by those who sought to remove him from his leadership role at the Kerala Chalachithra Academy.
“The complainant held a grudge against me.”
– he asserted, suggesting that external forces had influenced her to file the complaint.
A team of advocates, including Sruthy N Bhat, PM Rafique, M Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K Sasi, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy KK, Sohail Ahammed Harris, and Nanditha S, represented Ranjith in his legal battle.
Broader Fallout in the Malayalam Film Industry
The case against Ranjith is not an isolated one, as the Justice Hema Committee Report has unleashed a wave of allegations across the Malayalam film industry. Other prominent figures, including actors Siddique, Mukesh, Manianpilla Raju, and director VK Prakash, are also facing similar accusations of sexual misconduct. These actors, like Ranjith, have all filed anticipatory bail pleas to protect themselves from arrest as investigations proceed.
In light of the committee’s findings, several petitions have been filed before the Kerala High Court, calling for action against the perpetrators mentioned in the report. One petition seeks to initiate formal action against the individuals named, while another requests an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the various allegations outlined in the report. The court has directed that an unredacted copy of the Hema Committee Report be filed under a sealed cover so that it can review whether any of the findings require a criminal investigation.
