Second case against director Ranjith on male actor's complaint
Kozhikode(Kerala) (PTI): A second case for a sexual offence has been registered against director Ranjith on a complaint by a male actor in this district, police said on Saturday.
An FIR under sections 377 (unnatural offence) of the IPC and section 66 E (punishment for violation of privacy) of the Information Technology (IT) Act was lodged against the director on Friday night at the Kasaba police station, a senior police officer of the district said.
The complainant actor has alleged that the director called him to a hotel in Bengaluru in 2012, asked him to strip and took his nude photos.
The complainant also claimed, before TV channels, that the photos were sent to a well known veteran female actor who has denied the allegation.
The first case against Ranjith was under IPC Section 354 (assault or criminal force on woman with intent to outrage her modesty) on a complaint by a female actor from West Bengal regarding an incident which occurred in 2009.
She had alleged that the director had touched her inappropriately with sexual intent after inviting her to act in the movie Paleri Manikyam in 2009.
Following the allegation by the actor, Ranjith had resigned from his post as chairman of Kerala Chalachitra Academy.
Multiple FIRs have been registered against many high profile Malayalam film personalities following allegations of sexual harassment against various directors and actors in the wake of revelations in the Justice K Hema Committee report.
The Justice Hema Committee was constituted by the Kerala government after the 2017 actress assault case and its report revealing instances of harassment and exploitation of women in the Malayalam cinema industry.
Following the allegations of sexual harassment and exploitation cropping up against several actors and directors
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Father didn't know minor son took car', says court, grants bail to businessman in accident case
Mumbai (PTI): A Mumbai court on Wednesday granted bail to a businessman, held in a car accident caused by his minor son that led to the death of a person last month, noting that prima facie the father lacked knowledge of his son taking out the vehicle for a drive.
Additional Sessions Judge R M Jadhav allowed his bail on a bond of Rs 50,000 and mainly relied on the statement of a watchman of the building where the businessman resides while granting him relief.
The accident occurred on February 5 near Somaiya College in Mumbai's Ghatkopar area.
As per police, the minor son of the businessman, booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was driving a Kia Seltos when it collided with a scooter, leading to the death of its rider Dhrumil Patel. The deceased's wife Meenal, who was riding pillion, suffered grievous injuries in the crash.
The boy's father was arrested on February 10 and booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions related to rash driving, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, act endangering life and safety of others as well as relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The accused, through his advocate Manish Singh, had argued during bail hearing in the court that he was neither present at the accident spot nor driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
He claimed had no knowledge of his son taking the vehicle on the day of the accident and was not responsible for the fatal crash.
Public Prosecutor P B Bankar opposed the bail application, contending the father allowed his son to drive despite knowing the minor did not possess a valid licence.
Advocate Ruben Mascarenhas, appearing for an intervenor (representing the victim's family) , highlighted that the minor operated an Instagram account which featured reckless driving stunts.
The applicant/accused had knowledge of this fact, but still allowed his son to drive the SUV. Hence, prima facie an offence was made out against him, he added.
The advocate submitted that the accused offered Rs 40 lakh to the victim's family to settle the case and claimed that the minor's Instagram history was tampered with.
Additional Sessions Judge Jadhav, after hearing all sides, relied on the statement of a watchman of the businessman's building while granting bail.
It is noted that at 10.15 pm (on the day of accident) the juvenile accused approached the watchman and asked for the car's keys (which were in the latter's possession at that time). The watchman claimed that without questioning the teenager, he handed over the keys to the minor as he happened to be the son of the accused, the court order said.
Later, when the father came down and found that his car was not there in the parking lot, he enquired with the watchman, and came to know the vehicle was taken by his son, it said.
"Prima facie, the material on record thus goes to show that the applicant/accused was not having knowledge of the fact that at the time of incident his son took the vehicle which is required to be noted here," the court held.
The court directed the businessman not to leave Mumbai without its permission and desist from any attempt to influence witnesses in the case.
