Shahina K.K. vs State

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The Petitioner has filed these petitions to enlarge her on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime Nos. 199/2010 and 241/2010 of Siddapura Police Station and Somwarpet Police Station, Madikeri, Coorg District, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Madikeri for the offence punishable u/s 506 r/w. 149 IPC.

The facts relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:

On the basis of the complaint dated 24.11.2010, the case has been registered in crime No. 199/2010 by Siddapura Police Station, Kodagu District for the offence punishable u/s 506 r/w. 149 IPC. The contents of the complaint is that on 16.11.2010 the Petitioner came along with other 3 persons in order to collect reports on ground that she is the reporter of Tehelka magazine. In the course of her job of reporting, the Petitioner along with other 3 persons has threatened the complainant with consequence in case of being a witness in favour of the prosecution. In view of threat given by the Petitioner along with 3 persons on 16.11.2010, the complaint was made on 24.11.2010. The reason for inordinate delay in lodging complaint is that since his child was not well and in taking his child to the hospital, delay has occurred.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that basically the Petitioner is a reporter for a magazine. She is doing the job for last many years and she has bagged many awards as reporter and she is known for sting operations. As on the date of the offence, the Petitioner recorded the proceedings in the house of the complainant. Hence, what has been done by the Petitioner is part of her job as a reporter and secondly, the complaint lodged is after a lapse of more than a week. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint is not explained properly by the complainant. To substantiate the fact that she is a reporter, the learned Counsel for Petitioner place a copy of Tehelka magazine for the month of December 2010. Even in the statement of objections filed by the prosecution, there is no reference of threat as alleged by the complainant against the Petitioner. He has referred para Nos. 7 and 9 of statement of objections that it is one Subair and others have threatened the witness in this case. Since the statement of objections is not reflecting the fact referred above, it is nothing but a false case against the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the ruling reported in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court, -para Nos. 289 and 304, where under the Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of carrying sting operations, it is only after obtaining permission from the concerned Authority. He further submits that without seeking prior permission from the police or the concerned Authority, to carry out sting operations, is a contravention of Article 19 of Constitution of India and prays for allowing this petition.

Learned HCGP relies on the statement of objections and submits that complainant who is a prosecution witness, has been threatened by the Petitioner along with other three persons. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint is explained in the compliant itself that since his child was not well and taken to hospital, delay has caused. He also submits that there being severe threats to the prosecution witness, it is an obstruction in the investigation carried out by the prosecution and hence, criminal case is filed against the Petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petitions.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned HCGP for the Respondent State.

The Petitioner is a journalist and working for Tehelka magazine since many years and conducting sting operations as a part of her job. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on one such report carried out. As it is submitted that without seeking prior permission, conducting sting operations is a contravention of Article 19 of Constitution of India. That means, being a journalist she is not free and carry out the job and obstruct in the investigation. If the Petitioner along with 3 others have threatened the complainant and obstructed the investigation, nothing prevented the complainant from lodging a complaint at an earliest point of time. He has taken 8 days and has not explained the reasons properly for the delay in lodging the complaint. Secondly, the case has been registered on 24.11.2010 and even after the lapse of more than 6 months, no attempt has been made to arrest the Petitioner. Hence, petition is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail with following conditions:

In the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Officer arresting her.

The Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

She shall appear on all hearing dates before the Court without fail.

She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.