Kerala High Court will shortly pronounce orders in the anticipatory bail applications moved by dubbing artist Bhagyalakshmi and feminist activists Diya Sana and Sreelakshmi Arackal, accused of assaulting a YouTuber for his slurs on feminists.

An intervention application has been filed on behalf of the YouTuber Vijay P. Nair.

Advocate Arjun Venogopal is appearing on Nair's behalf.

The issues presented in the present petition were already substantially dealt with by the court below: Venugopal

Some weightage must be given to the Sessions Court's finding

The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with Sessions Court in Kerala, what is the embargo: Court

They should show a change in circumstances before approaching this Court: Venugopal
So you're saying the High Court is bound by the decisions of the Sessions Court?: Court

I'm not saying that, there should be some finality to proceedings, Your Lordship must consider: Venugopal

He proceeds to quote a judgment

I'm not saying the High Court cannot entertain the issue, I'm restricting my point to the weightage the Court should give to the lower court's decision (denying the three bail): Venugopal

Judge laughs: that's better

Their case is that we had a prior interaction where I invited them to my home and that I tried to outrage the modesty of one of them, this is false: Venugopal for Nair

I have never met them: Venugopal

(Read an account of the previous proceedings of the case) https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/kerala-hight-court-hears-bail-plea-assault-on-vijay-p-nair-youtube

Advocate Venugopal tries to demonstrate that the three committed robbery and wrongful restraint.

You have been restrained from continuing with your activities?: Judge

I surrender to justice (for my acts), but not by these unlawful means of taking away my property: Venugopal

They have caused me wrongful loss by taking away my phone and laptop, I can't watch a video now, I can't make a phone call: Venugopal

They are now saying they took them to hand it to the police, I was willing to delete the video, but they wanted my laptop and mobile: Venugopal

Not only that, they took away my headset!: Venugopal

Maybe they did not want you to keep listening to what you said in the video: Judge

I have apologized for my video, I made it on the strength of Article 19: Venugopal

So you're saying that you are against vigilantism? : Judge

I don't want to take names, they have received so much support: Venugopal

He reads another judgment to establish mens rea and dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss

In Indian law, there does not have to be total or permanent gain or loss: Venugopal

He attempts to show that the women knew what they were doing when they took away his client's electronic devices.

What they did later, whether they gave the property to the police, or gave it to charity, none of that matters: Venugopal

I would ask you to watch the Video milord: Venugopal

I was calling them Madam, I did not resist their attack: Venugopal

He refers to the Sessions Judge decision that stated that allowing them on bail would send out a wrong message: Venugopal

This is a valid consideration, he continues, quoting a Supreme Court judgment.

Then if what you're saying, bail can never be granted, S438 would have to be thrown out of the book: Court

I won't go as far as that milord, just considering this particular case: Venugopal

The prosecution says the persons are absconding, if you search the internet you will see them everywhere giving interviews, they are absconding only for the prosecution. They are highly influential people: Venugopal

This is a revenge crime, he says.

They have no remorse, such a crime can repeat: Venugopal

She took the video on two devices, videos from one are in the public domain: Venugopal

Both the devices are essential, custodial interrogation is necessary: Venugopal

He continues, comparing the three women's act to lynching.

The prosecution did not make any of these submissions, this is why I was forced to come in: Venugopal

He quotes a judgment that made observations on vigilantism, mob violence, and self professed morality, and those who "take laws into their own hands"

Whether you are a feminist or a male chauvinist this principle will apply: Venugopal concludes, praying for the bail pleas to be dismissed

Advocate S Renjith rebuts Adv Venugopal's submissions.

He states that the devices were handed to the police and there was no intention to keep the devices: Adv S. Renjith

You prevented him from continuing to make such videos, was it not a loss: Judge

All laugh

He could have filed an application to get custody of his devices, why was this not done: Renjith

What can be done about the women taking the law into their own hands?: Court

There was no preparation, we were invited: Renjith

He says you barged in, and you went with ink and a nettle plant: Court

Does this not constitute preparation?: Court

You aired the video on Facebook Live, how can you say there was no intention: Court

I don't know from whose account it was streamed: Renjith

It was from the account of the second accused: other counsel

When you slap someone and take his property is that not robbery: Court

What did you do, you slapped him left and right, and took his laptop?

We returned the devices: Renjith

You're saying they did not have dishonest intention?: Court

Yes, they did not have a dishonest intention: Renjith

What would you say about awrong signal being sent: Court

After this happened, the Kerala Govt introduced an amendment to the Kerala Police Act: Renjith

If you want to bring changes in law by force, you should be willing to face the consequences: Court

You should not be approaching the Court for anticipatory bail: Court

The Prosecutor submits that the mobile phone used to stream the video had to be confiscated. He also says that the three were assisted by others.

We are willing to cooperate with the investigation, custodial interrogation is not necessary: Advocate Renjith

The Judge asks the other intervention applicants if they had anything to add. I will not be allowing them. Only the intervention application of the complainant can be allowed under Section 301 CrPC

I'm not interested hearing the intervenor, I just want Adv Marar's inputs: Court
(Advocate Renjith Marar is appearing for one of the intervention applicants.)

(On the point that the women wanted to make a point)
Friction is necessary for change, that is what the freedom fighters said: the Counsel say

You are also fighting for freedom, freedom of 'feminine' rights: Court says, laughing

Court proceeds to reserve judgment, does not pass orders today.