Kerala HC stays proceedings against Bobby Chemmannur after Malayalam actress accepts public apology
The Kerala High Court has stayed proceedings in a sexual harassment case against businessman Bobby Chemmannur following an actress's willingness to withdraw her complaint after his public apology.
The Kerala High Court has stayed proceedings in a sexual harassment case against businessman Bobby Chemmannur following an actress's willingness to withdraw her complaint after his public apology.
The Kerala High Court has stayed proceedings in a sexual harassment case against businessman Bobby Chemmannur following an actress's willingness to withdraw her complaint after his public apology.
Kochi: In a relief to businessman Boby Chemmannur, the Kerala High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings before the Ernakulam Sessions Court in the high-profile sexual harassment case registered against him based on a complaint from a prominent Malayalam actress. The move comes after the actress filed an affidavit expressing her willingness to withdraw her complaint in view of his unconditional public apology.
The High Court posted the case after three weeks to consider the police’s settlement report before deciding on Chemmannur’s petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
Alongside the legal proceedings, he issued a public apology through his official Instagram account, addressing the actress and her family.
In the post, he acknowledged that his remarks had caused them deep mental anguish. “I sincerely apologise for the harm I have caused. I take full responsibility for my words and their impact. I had no intention of causing any pain, and I sincerely hope that, by offering this heartfelt apology, she will consider withdrawing the case. I request that this matter be viewed in light of my apology, and I remain committed to moving forward positively,” he said.
Responding to the apology, the actress later said she and her family had decided to accept it, while observing that the entire controversy could have been avoided had the apology come much earlier. The actress also said that she had no intention to harm anyone and pursued legal action only because his statements caused her family immense difficulty. Since he has expressed regret, she appreciated it and accepted the apology. She also said she and her family would take a collective decision on the remaining legal steps.
When the matter came up before the High Court on Friday, the actress’ lawyer, Advocate Zakir Hussain, submitted a signed affidavit stating that she had no objection to closing the case in light of Chemmannur's unconditional apology.
Taking note of the affidavit, the High Court stayed all further proceedings before the Ernakulam Sessions Court.
However, the proceedings have not yet been formally terminated. The High Court directed the investigating police to record statements from both parties regarding the settlement and to submit a report. The court will consider the report after three weeks before passing final orders on Chemmannur’s plea to quash the case.
The case dates back to early 2025, when the actress lodged a complaint alleging that Chemmannur had repeatedly made sexually coloured and defamatory remarks against her, including during public events.
Acting on the complaint, the police took Chemmannur into custody from Wayanad on January 8, 2025. He was brought to Kochi later that evening, where his arrest was formally recorded under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 75(1) for sexual harassment and 75(4) for unwelcome sexually colored remarks. He was also charged with section 67 of the Information Technology Act for publishing, transmitting, or causing the transmission of obscene material in electronic form.
The following day, the magistrate court rejected his bail application, observing that the allegations were prima facie sustainable, and remanded him to 14 days of judicial custody at the Kakkanad District Jail.
Chemmannur subsequently approached the Kerala High Court and secured bail within a few days. However, while granting him relief, the High Court came down heavily on his conduct.
The controversy deepened after Chemmannur chose not to walk out of prison immediately despite obtaining bail. He later claimed that he had voluntarily remained in jail for an additional day to “help fellow remand prisoners”.
The statement drew sharp criticism from the High Court, which summoned Chemmannur's counsel on three separate occasions the following day. The court reprimanded the defence team and warned that it could even cancel his bail. It softened its stand only after Chemmannur tendered an unconditional apology.