Punjab and Haryana HC grants interim bail to Times Now cameraman and driver, extends bail of Bhawana Kishore

On May 9, the interim bail of Times Now Navbharat reporter Bhawana Kishore was extended till May 22 by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Her associates, cameraperson Mritunjay Kumar and driver Parmender Singh Rawat, had been moreover granted interim bail. In its order, the extreme courtroom docket said that the arrest and the judicial custody of Kumar and Rawat by police and Justice of the Peace had been illegal, and the an identical was completed mechanically with out considering the prices slapped in opposition to them.

In the order, the High Court said that the duty officer who arrested the driving force and cameraperson did not inform them that that that they had the selection to submit bail bonds as a result of the allegations in opposition to them had been bailable. Furthermore, the courtroom docket said the petitioners had been deprived of their life and personal liberty by sending them to judicial custody in a mechanical means even if it was compulsory for the investigation.

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab police booked Bhawana, Parmender and Mritunjay for allegedly injuring a 50-year-old woman and using casteist slurs in opposition to her all through an argument after the accident. Bhawana was accused of using derogatory language. Parmender was charged with recklessly driving the auto. Mritunjay was accused of entering into an argument with the sufferer.

The Judicial Magistrate and Special Court despatched all three to 14-day judicial custody on 6 May. However, the High Court granted them interim bail on the an identical day. Times Now has alleged a conspiracy was hatched in opposition to its employees in retaliation to Operation Sheesh Mehel whereby Times Now Navbharat uncovered particulars of “ultra-lavish and disproportionate expenditure incurred in refurbishing the official residence of the Delhi CM”.

In an official assertion after Bhawana and the other two had been granted bail, the channel said, “In a bizarre turn of events on May 05, Bhawana Kishore, along with cameraman Mrityunjay Kumar and Driver Parminder Singh who went to cover a political program presided by Arvind Kejriwal in Ludhiana were implicated in a staged road accident case and falsely accused of using casteist remarks against a group of women, believed to be AAP workers, who in an e-rickshaw first rammed into the team’s car, got into a brawl and called the Ludhiana police. Bhawana Kishore’s illegal arrest violated several rules, including being detained without a lady police officer, arrest post sunset, denial of legal and telephone access and being forced to sign documents in Gurmukhi, a language she didn’t understand. Mrityunjay, who was just a passenger in the Car involved in the alleged accident, was illegally and unnecessarily detained and has spent four nights in Jail in gross disrespect of his dignity as a citizen.”

Times Now Navbharat Vindicated:
Punjab and Haryana High Court grants interim bail to Bhawana Kishore, Video Journalist Mrityunjay and driver Parminder. pic.twitter.com/7SZq1DlxRy

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) May 9, 2023

The channel added, “This incident which has raised National concern over the gross and deliberate misuse of State powers along with the malicious use of the SC/ST Act, has gathered tremendous public support. The distressed families of the trio and Times Network welcome the judgment with great relief. This reinstates our belief that truth can never be silenced, no matter how devious the oppressors. This is a testament to Times Now Navbharat’s commitment to fearless journalism. We will continue to raise uncomfortable questions to those in power without fear of consequences.”

High Court’s remarks on the time of interim bail to Parmender and Mritunjay

On May 9, Punjab and Haryana High Court heard the arguments for the interim bail petition of driver Parmender and cameraperson Mritunjay. The counsel educated that petitioner two and petitioner 3 (Mritunjay and Parmender) weren’t booked beneath SC/ST Act, and the Sections that they had been booked beneath had been bailable. Thus they deserve interim bail as Bhawana.

The allegations in opposition to Mritunjay had been solely regarding entering into an argument with the sufferer. The accusations in opposition to Parmender had been regarding recklessly driving the auto leading to accidents and hurt to the phone. The council said the officer did not give them the selection to submit bail bonds, which must have been completed, considering the offences had been bailable.

Furthermore, the council said Duty Magistrate granted judicial remand even if it was non-compulsory for the investigation and the petitioners must have been launched on bail. When that they had been supplied inside the Special Court, Ludhiana, the courtroom docket “acted mechanically” and granted Judicial Remand with out verifying and ascertaining the character of the offences they allegedly devoted. The counsel recognized that the police did not search police remand each, exhibiting custody was non-compulsory for the investigation.

The counsel displaying for the state said the petitioners did not avail themselves of the therapy beneath Section 439 of the CrPC. However, the council could not be able to help it if the judicial custody given by Judicial Magistrate and the Special Court had been in accordance with the laws, as no no-bailable offences in opposition to the duo had been made out. However, he insisted that that they had been licensed as a result of the competent courtroom docket remanded them to judicial custody.

Replying to the matter of non-availing the therapy to methodology the trial courtroom docket sooner than approaching the High Court beneath Section 439 of the CrPC, the petitioners’ counsel said they may not be saved in custody merely because of they approached the High Court first.

The Court well-known that based on the submissions made by the counsels, learning of the FIR and transient reply submitted by the state, it was found that the factual aspect in reference to the allegations in opposition to the duo did not make out an offence which may be non-bailable.

The courtroom docket said, “Under those circumstances, firstly, the officer, who had taken these two petitioners in custody, could not have done so without making them aware of the fact that they could avail of the remedy of release on submission of bail bonds or surety. The same would be the position regarding the order of remand at the hands of the Duty Magistrate and the Special Court. It appears that at no stage the provisions of the Statute were actually gone into or seen. Mechanically, initially, the Arresting Officer and after that, the Judicial Officers proceeded to pass orders of arrest and remand.”

Calling the judicial remand illegal, the courtroom docket said, “Continuance of a citizen in custody without there being a mandate of law, i.e. illegal custody, cannot be permitted.”

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Slammi the Justice of the Peace’s courtroom docket for the ‘mechanical remand order, the extreme courtroom docket added, “A Court and that too, a Constitutional Court when comes to know of the same, cannot shut its eyes to the same.” The courtroom docket questioned if it was relevant for a citizen to proceed in incarceration when it isn’t solely apparent from the allegations nonetheless an undisputed place that the two petitioners did not commit the alleged offences that had been non-bailable.

As the complainant must be educated in regards to the proceedings and the state should submit its response, the courtroom docket granted the state ten days to submit the reply in regards to the petition to quash the FIR. The subsequent date of listening to has been set to May 22.

The courtroom docket further extended the interim bail of Bhawana Kishore till May 22.

High Court’s remarks on the time of interim bail to Bhawana Kishore

On May 6, after the courses courtroom docket denied interim bail to Bhawana Kishore and others and despatched them to judicial custody, they approached Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Augustine George Masih heard the petition inside the matter. Bhawana’s counsel educated the courtroom docket that the allegations in opposition to her could not be made as Bhawana did not meet Gagan earlier.

It was talked about that the allegations made it clear they in no way met sooner than the incident. Thus the question of using the casteist slurs talked about by the complainant did not come up. Having thought-about the submissions, the non-bailable offence beneath SC/ST Act was not devoted, and the offences beneath IPC Sections had been bailable.

Prima Facie No SC/ST offence made out by the petitioner. Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The counsel further educated the courtroom docket that every one three accused had been in Ludhiana to attend the inauguration of Government run clinics on an invitation obtained from the Media coordinator. Attributing to her effectively being, age and profession, the counsel sought interim bail for Bhawana.

Advocate General displaying for Punjab Government acknowledged that the complainant must be educated sooner than granting bail to the accused and sought time. He further added that the allegations made in opposition to Bhawana had been extreme and did not deserve the advantage of interim bail.

In its order, the High Court said after going by means of the FIR, it was prima facie clear that the offence beneath the SC/ST act was not made out at that state. Because petitioner no 1 (Bhawana) is a girl and a senior correspondent of the National Network, she deserves to be granted interim bail inside the present data and circumstances of the case.

FIR in opposition to Bhawana, Parmender and Mritunjay

On May 5, a 50-year-old woman acknowledged as Gagan filed a criticism at Division 3 police station in Police Commissionerate Ludhiana district in opposition to Times Now Navbharat reporter Bhawana Kishore, driver Parmender Singh Rawat and cameraperson Mritunjay Kumar. An FIR beneath Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3X and 4 of the SC and the ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ACT had been filed in opposition to them.

Excerpt from FIR in opposition to Bhawana, Parmender and Mritunjay. Source: Punjab Police web page.

In her criticism, Gagan said she was going to attend the inauguration of Mohalla Clinic by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann. A car hit the auto from behind when she was coming out of the e-rikshaw near Shringar Cinema. While making an attempt to flee the accident, Gagan allegedly injured her left arm, and her mobile phone broke down. She claimed that driver Parmender was driving the auto recklessly.

When she approached the driving force and questioned why he hit her, the driving force allegedly argued alongside along with her. Meanwhile, Gagan claimed Mrityunjay and Bhawana exited the auto and started arguing alongside along with her. She accused Bhawana of claiming, “Tum neech jaati wale chamaar logon ka yehi kaam hai, tum log gaadi walon se paise ainthne ke liye kisi bhi hadd tak gir sakte ho (This is the work of you low caste Chamar people, you can stoop to any extent to extort money from the car owners).”

Gagan claimed in her criticism that Bhawana used casteist slurs in opposition to her that harm her sentiments. She further requested the police to e-book the trio beneath relevant IPC and SC/ST Act sections.

Based on her criticism, the police talked about inside the FIR {{that a}} case of SC/ST was booked in opposition to Bhawana and others. Appropriate Sections of the IPC had been moreover imposed in opposition to the accused.