While granting bail to TV reporter, HC: no offence made out under SC/ST Act

In HC, counsel for petitioners, Senior Advocates Chetan Mittal and RS Rai, with Advocates Gautam Dutt and Mayank Aggarwal, argued that Kishore, her colleague and the driver were illegally named in FIR. They contended that Kishore was part of a news report carried out by Times Now TV channel, which exposed the expenditure incurred on the redevelopment and renovation of Delhi Chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence and the present FIR “is a systematic and calibrated attempt by State of Punjab to suppress the freedom of speech, which is totally illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional”.

“The present case is nothing but a political witchhunt on the part of State of Punjab, acting at the behest of Aam Aadmi Party as for the last two weeks, Times Now Navbharat news channel has been reporting against the Kejriwal for constructing/renovating his official residence at the cost of Rs 45 crore. Thus, as a counter blast and to teach lesson to the news channel, the present false case has been registered and the petitioners, who are innocent, have been framed therein”, the petition read.

Advocate Mittal contended that no offence of SC/ST Act is made and a person who is coming from a different state can not know the caste of a person which is attributed to the complainant.

It was also contended in the HC that “the Times Now group got an invitation from the media coordinator of AAP for an event related to the inauguration of government run clinics at Ludhiana on May 5 by Kejriwal, whereupon the petitioners went there…The workers of AAP did not even allow the petitioners to enter the event and they kept waiting outside…while the petitioners were returning back, the car probably brushed past a rickshaw and there the petitioners were asked to come out of the vehicle and surrounded. On arrival of Police, they were illegally detained and taken in police custody”.

Appearing for Punjab, Advocate General Vinod Ghai referred to Section 15A (3) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to contend that the victim or the dependent thereof has a right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceedings including any bail proceedings and the special prosecutor or the state government has got to inform the victim mandatorily about any proceedings under this Act.

The AG further stated that he has not received the records of the case and, therefore, is unable to make submissions in detail. He asserted that the FIR is not encyclopedia and, therefore, without the records he is unable to further assist the Court. He also contended that the petitioners had a remedy under Section 439 CrPC before the Special Court but they approached HC under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR and for grant of regular bail.
The bench of Justice Augustine George Masih, on going through the FIR and contentions of the parties involved, said, “this court at this stage, is of the prima facie view that the offence under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. Apart from this aspect, the petitioner No.1 (Kishore) being a senior correspondent of national network and a 31 years old lady deserves to be granted interim bail in the present facts and circumstances of the case”.

“Objections as raised by the Advocate General will be considered on the next date of hearing when the reply to the petition and records of the case are available with him”, said Justice Masih, while ordering Kishore to be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana till the next date of hearing.
The matter was adjourned for May 8.