Gurgaon court denies anticipatory bail to news anchor Chitra Tripathi

Eight media professionals had been booked for allegedly telecasting and later uploading on the internet a video of a 10-year-old girl in an “obscene and vulgar manner” and linking it to a sexual assault case against self-styled godman Asaram Bapu. The case was registered under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code; sections 67B (publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form) and 66(2) (computer related offences) of the Information Technology Act; and section 23 of the POCSO Act under which the disclosure of the identity of the child is a punishable offence.

Tripathi and Suhail had moved applications seeking exemption from personal appearance in court. While Tripathi said she was travelling to Nashik in Maharashtra to cover the Assembly elections and interview NCP chief Ajit Pawar, Suhail submitted that he had to attend a political event in Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh on account of the bypolls.

While submitting her bail application, Tripathi reiterated the reasons for her absence.

The bail was dismissed on November 25 as the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Ashwani Kumar stated that the grounds for bail were the same as those for non-appearance. The court said that the application was declined after “feeling dissatisfied with the reasons assigned in the said application…and since the present application is based upon the same grounds hence, it is required to be declined as this court had found those reasons to be unjustified,” it said.

Tripathi had submitted her flight tickets and photographs of the interview with Maharashtra caretaker chief minister Eknath Shinde and Pawar to substantiate her application. The court said that keeping in view the status and busy schedule of these politicians, the interview would have been fixed earlier and if the accused had some respect for the process of the court, she could have gotten her presence exempted by moving the exemption application personally on any other date prior to the date fixed.

In its warrant-issuing order, the court had directed the station house officer concerned to execute the warrant and to appear in person if the warrants remained unexecuted.

The counsel for the complainant maintained that on the last two dates, the presence of accused Tripathi was exempted on health grounds, but now, no justifiable ground is made out to exempt the presence of the accused.

“…this Court does not find any justification for exempting her presence as it appears that she has been taking the process of the court quite lightly. The present case pertains to the year 2015 and if proceedings are not conducted expeditiously, it will not be practically feasible to dispose of the case at the earliest which has already become nine years old. Hence, the application seeking exemption on behalf of accused Chitra Tripathi is declined,” the court said, cancelling the bail and forfeiting the bail bonds and surety bonds of both the accused.