PROF D N RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for an anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners before this Court for invoking its jurisdiction under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Facts of the case relevant for the purpose of its adjudication are delineated concisely hereunder.

(3.) At Bhubaneswar there is an Institute known as Xavier Institute of Management (in short, 'the Institute'). It is Center for Development Research and Training (in short, the 'CENDERET'). One Miss. Bharati Ray (in short, 'the victim') happens to be a Senior Programme Manager of the Institute. Petitioner No. 1, D N. Rao (in short, 'Mr. Rao') acts as a coordinator of the Institute. Petitioner No. 2 Mrs. Swapna Harison is his Secretary whereas petitioner No. 3, Dr. Latha Rabinderan is the Professor of the said Institute. The victim alleges a series of incidents of sexual harassment and misbehavior meted out to her by Mr. Rao. He addresses her always openly as well as in official discussions as "you are just like use and throw pen, rotten apple and rotten fish". He, in a discussion, accused her once, saying that when she was proceeding on leave she was spending time with Director and keeping illicit relationship. On many occasions he directed her to stay in the office beyond office hours and also come to office on holidays. On protest, he directed her to go to distant places like Koraput or Malkangiri even if there was no need to go there (sic) particularly when other male colleagues in the office are sitting idle. After publication of news regarding sexual harassment caused by him to other lady employees of the Institute in newspapers like 'Adhikar' and 'Pratishruti', he passed indecent and filthy remarks like you bloody idiot hand in glove with this publication". He has also sent a number of times, some letters containing a lot of sexually coloured languages and then wiped out immediately. He has appealed her a number f times for his lust for sex. And for having failed in his attempts, he officially puts her to a number of difficulties. Whenever, he comes to her single room at Cenderet Building he always sits close to her in spite of her objections. He has touched her body a number of times on pretext of seeing her necklace or how she wears her saree. He talks always regarding sex and sexual objects of lady members, thereby creating a lot of embarrassment for her. On protest he becomes violent and with grudge tries to put her to a lot of difficulties during official transaction. He threatened to evaluate her performance and C.C.R. as poor and transfer her to Koraput or Keonjhar. Sometimes he has threatened her to remove from service with the help of Director of the Institute. Though she reported to the previous Director regarding the aforesaid misdeeds of Mr. Rao but in vain. At last she intimated the said Director about her trauma and harassment through her lawyer but of no use. Though on 26-6-2000 he wrote her a letter stating that he would take care of her case for further action but at the same time he had sent another envelope containing nude picture of a lady super-imposing her official photo with it. In the said envelope the Director has written in his own hand as "Ms. Bharati Ray, CENDERET" at the back of the seminude picture. The Director (GYANERATHINAM) has written in his own hand as "to his daughter from Gautam Budha". The said Director was removed from the post of Director by the Governing Body of the Institute and in his place the present Director has joined. So at last out of fear of suspension and removal from service she brought a writ in O.J.C. No. 6555 of 2000 before this Court to issue direction to the State Government to provide her protection from being sexually harassed by the petitioners and to cause enquiry into her allegations and take appropriate action against the perpetrators. It is alleged by her that during dependency of the writ application petitioner no. 3 at the direction of Mr. Rao pressurised her to withdraw the same. She also threatened her with dire consequences if she does not agree to her suggestions. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 pressurised her to withdraw her case from the High Court. She has also threatened her to beat with chappels unless she agrees o her suggestions. It is also alleged that Mr. Rao is always giving threats to her life and properties for which she is passing her days with apprehension and fear. The victim further alleges that on 25-1-2001 Mr. Rao scolded her through intercom phone saying " you are a prostitute. How long you will survive I will see. Your days are numbered". On her information with the aforesaid allegations Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2001 under Ss. 294/354/500/506/509/34, IPC was registered and investigation of the caseis now in progress for which the petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the police. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is made by them with a prayer to admit them to bail in the event of their arrest by the police.