9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1464 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of Interim Bail - tweets which have been put out by the Petitioner have spread hate or not - HELD THAT - The machinery of criminal justice has been relentlessly employed against the Petitioner. Despite the fact that the same tweets allegedly gave rise to similar offences in the diverse FIRs mentioned above the Petitioner was subjected to multiple investigations across the country. Consequently he would be required to hire multiple advocates across districts file multiple applications for bail travel to multiple districts spanning two states for the purposes of investigation and defend himself before multiple courts all with respect to substantially the same alleged cause of action. Resultantly he is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment. It also appears that certain dormant FIRs from 2021 were activated as certain new FIRs were registered thereby compounding the difficulties faced by the Petitioner. The raison d etre of the powers of arrest in relation to cognizable offences is laid down in Section 41. Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations and without a fair trial. When the power to arrest is exercised without application of mind and without due regard to the law it amounts to an abuse of power. The criminal law and its processes ought not to be instrumentalized as a tool of harassment. Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state with unlimited resources at its disposal against a lone individual. Merely because the complaints filed against the Petitioner arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the Petitioner to not express his opinion - an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active participating citizen - would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the Petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech - Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice his profession. Petition allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of multiple FIRs against the Petitioner. 2. Jurisdiction of investigation and consolidation of FIRs. 3. Interim bail and personal liberty of the Petitioner. 4. Conditions on bail and freedom of speech. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Multiple FIRs Against the Petitioner: The Petitioner, co-founder of ALT News, faced multiple FIRs for tweets allegedly inciting communal disharmony. FIR No. 172/2022 was registered by the Delhi Police under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 201, and 120-B of the IPC, and Section 35 of the FCRA was added later. The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody. The status report by Delhi Police indicated that the investigation covered tweets that allegedly triggered religious sentiments and were part of a larger conspiracy. Additional FIRs were registered in Uttar Pradesh under similar sections of the IPC and IT Act, leading to multiple legal proceedings against the Petitioner. 2. Jurisdiction of Investigation and Consolidation of FIRs: The Petitioner sought quashing or consolidation of FIRs, arguing that all FIRs implicated similar offences and arose from the same tweets. The Court noted that the Delhi Police had already conducted a comprehensive investigation covering the gamut of tweets. The Court found no justification for continued custody and multiple investigations by different jurisdictions. It directed that all FIRs be transferred to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, disbanding the SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police. The consolidation aimed to ensure a fair and unified investigation process. 3. Interim Bail and Personal Liberty of the Petitioner: The Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and found that the Petitioner had been subjected to multiple investigations across different jurisdictions, resulting in harassment. The Court granted interim bail in all FIRs, highlighting that the power to arrest should be exercised sparingly and not as a punitive tool. The Court referenced the principles laid down in *Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India*, emphasizing the need to protect journalistic freedom and prevent the criminal law from becoming a weapon for selective harassment. 4. Conditions on Bail and Freedom of Speech: The State of Uttar Pradesh suggested barring the Petitioner from tweeting while on bail. The Court rejected this, stating that such a condition would be disproportionate and tantamount to a gag order, violating the Petitioner's freedom of speech and expression. The Court reiterated that bail conditions must be proportional and should not infringe on constitutional rights. It highlighted that the Petitioner's tweets, as a journalist, were part of his professional duty to dispel misinformation. Judgment: The Court allowed the petition in part, directing the following: 1. The Petitioner was granted interim bail in all FIRs upon filing a personal release bond of Rs. 20,000. 2. The investigation of all FIRs was transferred to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. 3. The SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police was disbanded. 4. The Petitioner was entitled to interim bail for any future FIRs related to the same subject matter. 5. The Petitioner could pursue remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi. 6. The bail bonds were to be presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patiala House Courts, Delhi, ensuring the Petitioner's release from judicial custody by 6 pm. The Court underscored that the criminal process should not become a tool of harassment and that personal liberty must be safeguarded against unwarranted state action.
|
