E-Paper
Chandigarh sexual harassment case: GMCH staffer denied anticipatory bail
The OT technician is accused of sexually harassing a third-year medical student of Government Medical College and Hospital in Sector 32, Chandigarh
The district court on Monday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by an OT technician, who allegedly sexually harassed a third-year medical student of Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Sector 32.
The complainant stated in the FIR that on June 27, she was on evening duty and when she went to the store room to get some medicines, an OT technician, named Kamleshwar, followed her: “As I tried to run away, he held me from the front and molested me. As I managed to get out of the store room, he threatened that he would kill me if I ever complained about it,” the student complained.
The accused, who is a resident of Mullanpur, was booked under Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code on June 28.
In the court of an additional sessions judge, complainant’s counsel Terminder Singh argued that the complainant had specifically mentioned in the FIR that the accused had molested her.
Accused alleges regionalism
In his plea, the accused stated that because he was from Bihar, everyone used to address him as “bhaiya”, because of which a heated argument had taken place and a “false” case had been registered against him.
The complainant argued that it was a serious matter and she had no motive to falsely implicate him, adding that custodial interrogation was required. After hearing the arguments, the court dismissed the bail petition.
Students protest on premises
The police are yet to arrest the accused, and the slow action by the authorities has angered the medical students, who could be seen protesting outside the police post on the hospital premises on Monday. The students raised slogans and held placards.
The doctors have also been anguished as it took the authorities almost a week to suspend the accused.
A letter dated July 3 mentioned that the accused had been immediately placed under suspension in view of the complaint, for not appearing in front of the internal complaint committee of sexual harassment of women at workplace, and a case against him was under investigation.
