Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Exemption From Personal Appearance To Journalist Deepak Chaurasia In 2015 POCSO Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted an exemption to journalist Deepak Chaurasia from personal appearance in a 2015 POCSO case before Gurugram Court.

Deepak Chaurasia along with other journalists was booked for allegedly airing 'morphed, edited & obscene' videos of a 10-year-old girl and her family and linking the same to a sexual assault case against self-styled godman Asaram Bapu.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar granted an exemption to Chaurasia from personal appearance subjected to certain conditions.

In 2023 a special court in Haryana's Gurugram framed charges against 8 Journalists including anchors Deepak Chaurasia, Chitra Tripathi, and Ajit Anjum for allegedly airing 'morphed, edited & obscene' videos of a 10 y/o girl and her family and linking the same to a sexual assault case against self-styled godman Asaram Bapu.

All 8 media professionals namely Ajit Anjum, Anchor Md Sohail, and reporter Sunil Dutt worked with News24, editor-in-chief Chaurasia, anchors Tripathi and Rashid Hashmi, Jodhpur reporter Lalit Singh Badgurjar, and producer Abhinav Raj worked with India News- had been charged under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 469 and 471 (forgery) IPC; sections 67B (abusing children online) and and 67 (publishing or transmitting sexually explicit content) IT Act; and sections 23 (disclosure of identity of a child by the media) and 13C (indecent or obscene representation of a child) of the POCSO Act.

All  journalists were charged for hatching a criminal conspiracy whereby agreeing to prepare a forged video of a minor girl victim aged about 10 years and her family by showing the victim and her family in an indecent manner and telecasting the same on news channels, thereby harming the reputation of victim and her family.

The counsel representing Chaurasia submitted that the charges against him were framed in July 2023 and trial of the case is progressing at snail's pace as only 5, out of 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and attending the trial on each and every date would cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner and it will also affect his livelihood.

On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that keeping in view serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the exemption from personal appearance.

After hearing the submission the Court noted that "it is evident that charges against the petitioner have been framed on 14.07.2023 and only 5 PWs, out of 15, have been examined so far."

Reliance was placed upon a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S.V. Muzumdar v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 860, wherein speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, it had laid down the law that while deciding on the issue of exemption, the Court has to consider whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or whether progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence. 

In light of the above the Court granted exemption from the personal appearance before the trial Court subject to following conditions:

(i) petitioners shall be represented through their counsel;

(ii) shall not delay/stall the proceedings;

(iii) shall not dispute their identity;

(iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel;

(v) shall appear before the Court as and when required; and

(vi) any other condition, which the Court below may impose.

Edward Augustine George, Advocate with Manish Gilhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate  with Naveen Shrma, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: Deepak Chaurasia v. State of Haryana 

Click here to read/download the order