A Delhi court today allowed TERI chief R K Pachauri, facing sexual harassment charges, to enter his office premises but barred him from going to the headquarter here and a branch in Gurgaon, saying it would be "too harsh" to restrict him from visiting all the premises.
The court barred Pachauri from visiting the Head Office where the alleged incident took place and the Gurgaon branch of TERI, the workplace of the victim, till the investigation was over in the case.
"The alleged offence is reported to have taken place while complainant was working in the head office of TERI premises. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be expedient in the interest of justice if accused is restrained from visiting the head office of TERI and also the Gurgaon Office, where complainant has been asked to join her duties.
Also Read
"Imposition of restriction of accused from visiting all the premises of TERI would be too harsh," Additional Sessions Judge Raj Kumar Tripathi said.
The court rejected the submission of the complainant's counsel that all TERI premises were inter-connected and Pachauri, its Director General, would influence the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence on the ground that all preventive measures have been taken by the police.
"In view of foregoing reasons, the application of accused for modification of order dated March 21, 2015 is hereby allowed.
"The order dated March 21 is modified to the extent that the accused shall not enter the Head Office and Gurgaon Office of TERI till the investigation is over in the case. However, he is at liberty to visit and work from rest of the premises of TERI," the court said, while taking note of Pachauri's submission that he be allowed to go to the office so that he can earn his livelihood.
On the submission by the complainant's counsel that the accused be asked to work from home, the court said "we are living in an age of science and technology. It is well known fact that all the major offices and institutions are well connected with each other.
"As the gadgets of complainant and accused have already been seized by the investigating officer, this court fails to understand as to how the accused will tamper with evidence.
