The Supreme Court will look into a Madhya Pradesh High Court order granting bail to a man charged with forcibly disrobing a woman on the condition that he approach the complainant with the request of tying a rakhi on his wrist.

A group of women lawyers and activists has challenged in the apex court the September 30 order of the high court granting the reprieve with such a condition to Vikram, who stands accused of a crime that is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.

The petitioners’ advocate, Aparna Bhat, and others have submitted that while they are not opposed to the grant of bail to the accused, they have taken exception to the high court trivialising the alleged crime.

They have also contended that the high court had chosen to pass such an order despite the fact that Parliament had in the wake of the 2012 Delhi bus gang rape and murder brought in amendments to criminal law to enhance the punishment for offences against women such as rape, stalking and outraging modesty by disrobing a woman.

Vikram has been charged under IPC Sections 452 (trespass), 354A (outraging a woman by disrobing her), 323 (causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation). Of these, Section 354A is the most serious offence, entailing a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail.

The high court directed Vikram’s release on the following conditions:

⚫The accused and his wife shall visit the house of the complainant with a rakhi and a box of sweets and request her to tie the rakhi on his wrist. The accused shall promise to protect her to the best of his ability for all times to come.

⚫He shall pay Rs 11,000 to the complainant as part of the customary ritual of brothers offering gifts to sisters on Raksha Bandhan and also seek her blessings.

⚫The accused shall also give Rs 5,000 to the son of the complainant to purchase clothes and sweets.

⚫The accused shall furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and a solvent surety of the same amount to the trial court on the condition that he shall remain present before it during trial.

The prosecution had alleged that Vikram had barged into the house of his neighbour at 2.30am on April 20 and

grabbed her by the hand in an attempt to outrage her modesty.

The accused had denied the allegations, saying that he had been falsely implicated by the husband of the woman as the couple owed him money. Vikram had alleged when he went to the neighbour’s house to request the repayment of the loan, the husband levelled the false accusations.

The petitioners before the apex court said they were challenging the bail condition on the rakhi “since it reflects the trivialisation of a heinous crime through a simplistic stereotypical solution”.

“The impugned order has been passed by a constitutional court such as a high court of a state and there is a strong likelihood that such observations and directions may result in normalising what is essentially a crime and has been recognised to be so by the law. The petitioners herein are not concerned with the merits of the order granting bail and are not challenging the grant of bail to Respondent No. 2 (accused),” their petition said.