Criminal Liability For Harassment In Public Transport In Nepal
Legal Basis
Under Nepal’s Criminal Code (Aparadh Ain, 2074):
Section 224 (Sexual Harassment): Prohibits sexual harassment of another person.
Transport and Public Safety Laws: Penalize misconduct, harassment, or assault in vehicles and bus parks.
Elements of Liability:
Act of harassment (physical, verbal, or non-verbal).
Occurs in public transport or related premises.
Intent or knowledge of the act.
Evidence such as witness statements, video, or complaint.
Case 1: Kathmandu Bus Passenger Groping Case (2017)
Facts:
A male passenger repeatedly touched a female commuter on a crowded Kathmandu bus. The victim lodged a complaint at the Metropolitan Police.
Issues:
Whether groping in a public bus qualifies as sexual harassment under Section 224.
How to establish intent in crowded situations.
Outcome:
The perpetrator was arrested, remanded for investigation, and later convicted of sexual harassment. He received a 6-month imprisonment sentence with a fine.
Significance:
This case shows that direct physical harassment on buses can lead to criminal liability even if the bus is crowded, establishing the applicability of Section 224 in public transport contexts.
Case 2: Bus Conductor Verbal Abuse Case (2018)
Facts:
A bus conductor verbally abused a female passenger when she asked for assistance in boarding the vehicle. The abuse included sexualized remarks and threats.
Issues:
Whether verbal sexual harassment constitutes a punishable offense.
Liability of transport staff versus passengers.
Outcome:
The conductor was fined and suspended by the bus company. Criminal charges were filed, and the court sentenced him to 3 months imprisonment under Section 224.
Significance:
This case highlights that harassment does not need to be physical; verbal harassment is sufficient to establish criminal liability.
Case 3: Sexual Harassment in Lumbini Intercity Bus (2019)
Facts:
Two young women were harassed by multiple male passengers on an intercity bus traveling from Butwal to Lumbini. The driver and conductor failed to intervene despite complaints.
Issues:
Can inaction or facilitation by bus staff create liability?
The role of multiple perpetrators in joint liability.
Outcome:
The police arrested five male passengers for sexual harassment. Additionally, the driver and conductor were charged with negligence and facilitating harassment. The passengers received 6–12 months imprisonment, while the conductor and driver were fined.
Significance:
This case establishes that bus staff can be criminally liable for failing to prevent harassment and that multiple offenders can be prosecuted jointly.
Case 4: Harassment in Bus Park, Kathmandu (2020)
Facts:
A female student reported that she was physically harassed at the New Bus Park, Kathmandu, by a group of male youths while waiting for a bus. Security staff did not intervene.
Issues:
Liability of bus park management for harassment.
Accountability of individuals committing harassment in public spaces associated with transport.
Outcome:
The perpetrators were arrested and prosecuted. The bus park management was reprimanded for failing to provide security. Two male offenders were sentenced to 1-year imprisonment and fined.
Significance:
Shows that harassment can occur not only inside vehicles but also in transport hubs, and management negligence can attract administrative accountability.
Case 5: Women-Only Bus Harassment Prevention Case (2021)
Facts:
Complaints of harassment on mixed-gender buses led to the launch of women-only buses in Kathmandu. A male passenger attempted to verbally harass women but was caught by police.
Issues:
Criminal liability in segregated transport systems.
Effectiveness of preventive measures on legal liability.
Outcome:
The man was arrested and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment under Section 224.
Significance:
Shows that legal enforcement can be complemented by preventive measures (women-only buses), yet liability is still enforced if harassment occurs.
Case 6: Harassment of Minor on Bus, Chitwan (2022)
Facts:
A 16-year-old girl was harassed by an adult male on a Chitwan intercity bus. The girl filed a complaint with the police.
Issues:
Sexual harassment of minors and aggravation of penalties.
Ensuring protection for victims during prosecution.
Outcome:
The accused was arrested, charged under Section 224 with an aggravated penalty for harassment of a minor, and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrates that harassment of minors in public transport attracts stricter penalties, reinforcing the protective purpose of the law.
Case 7: Multiple-Passenger Harassment Case in Pokhara (2023)
Facts:
A commuter reported harassment by three male passengers on a crowded Pokhara city bus. The driver did not respond.
Issues:
Joint liability of multiple offenders.
Responsibility of drivers to maintain passenger safety.
Outcome:
All three offenders were convicted under Section 224, sentenced to 6–12 months imprisonment, and fined. The driver was warned and fined for negligence.
Significance:
This case reinforces joint liability, and that drivers can be held accountable for failing to maintain a safe environment.
Key Takeaways
Harassment in public transport is criminally punishable under Section 224.
Both passengers and transport staff can be liable—direct acts or failure to act can constitute a crime.
Physical, verbal, and sexual harassment are actionable.
Harassment of minors carries stricter penalties.
Administrative measures, such as women-only buses, can reduce incidents but do not remove criminal liability.
Evidence includes victim testimony, witness statements, and sometimes CCTV footage from buses or bus parks.
RELATED Blog
comments