A local court in Kozhikode recently granted pre-arrest bail to Asianet News’ Executive Editor and its other employees.
The issue involves claims that Asianet News aired a’staged interview’ of a minor girl who claimed she was a victim of drug abuse and sexual exploitation.
Priya K., the Special Judge, stated that there were no substantial claims against the petitioners in this case.
“They are the officials of a news channel and they are apprehending that they will be put in jail, for broadcasting a news item. In a democratic country like lndia, which gives liberty to the fourth estate which are press and media, media personnel cannot be put in jail alleging criminal offences. If at all any offence is committed by them, it can only be decided after a fair trial”, the bench remarked.
The prosecution case was that the accused prepared a fabricated report and broadcasted the said news item, titled ‘Narcotic is a dirty business,’ on November 10, 2022, with the intent of spreading a misunderstanding among the general public that all government schools were under the influence of narcotic drugs. In the video, a child in school uniform had given information of commission of offences under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). However, the petitioners had not informed the same to the authorities. It was claimed that the accused allegedly faked the interview and impersonated the POCSO victim in the video to generate the news.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate P.V. Hari and Advocate Sushama M. contended that a false case had been foisted on them and that they were innocent of the same.
According to the allegations, the father of the victim girl filed a complaint under the terms of the POCSO Act. “From the occurrence itself, it was clear that the new generation was abusing narcotics,” it was said. In response to the Government’s request to News Channels and other organisations to launch a campaign against the misuse of narcotic drugs, Asianet News launched the segment ‘Narcotics is a dirty business’ to educate the general public about drug abuse, which aired in six segments continuously for six days.
According to the counsels, such forthright reporting was disliked by some authorities, which is why Legislator P.V. Anwar preferred the complaint against the petitioners. It was claimed that only bailable offences were included at the time of the FIR’s registration, but the petitioners worried that non-bailable offences might be merged later and land them in jail. It was claimed that the de facto complaint was a ruling party MLA, and that the petitioners feared being held in unlawful detention if taken into jail. The petitioners submitted their plea for anticipatory bail on these grounds.
The Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, claimed that the petitioners were guilty of failing to disclose POCSO offences, forgery, cheating by personation, abetment of offences, criminal conspiracy, and use of a minor by an adult for illicit purposes. It was claimed that, after being served with notices to appear before the police and produce documentation, the petitioners had failed to do so. It was also said that the police wanted to file a report to amend Section 23 (4) of the POCSO Act, and that questioning of the accused in custody was required for evidence collecting. It was highlighted that if the petitioners were granted bail, they would intimidate and influence the witnesses.
The Court of Additional District and Sessions for the Trial of Matters Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children stated that there were no severe allegations against the petitioners, as anticipated by the POCSO Act, and no claims of grave offences. It was so determined that the petitioners in this instance might be granted pre-arrest bail. It further said that if the Investigating Officer needed the petitioners’ attendance for the purpose of investigation, a condition might be imposed to ensure the petitioners’ presence before the Investigating Officer.
“Considering all these aspects and also taking into account of the nature of allegation, the severity of punishment, the mode of registering the crime, remote chance of the petitioners in interfering with the investigation, influencing the witnesses, and also fleeing from justice, pre arrest bail can be granted to the petitioners on condition,” the bench stated.
In the event of their arrest, the petitioners were directed to be freed on bail if they executed a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. It was agreed that the petitioners will participate with the inquiry, as well as provide evidence and appear before the Investigating Officer as needed. It was further specified that the petitioners should not offer any enticement, threat, or promise to anybody familiar with the facts in order to discourage them from reporting the information to the Court or any police officer.
