"This Is No Way To Treat A Media Journalist, This Is Lawlessness" : Supreme Court Slams Jharkhand Govt For Arrest Of News 11 Bharat Reporter
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Jharkhand High Court granting interim bail to News 11 Bharat Journalist Arup Chatterjee. What had really resonated with the High Court while granting bail was the possibility that he was arrested without following the procedure under Section 41-A, and the procedure pertaining to production of...
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Jharkhand High Court granting interim bail to News 11 Bharat Journalist Arup Chatterjee. What had really resonated with the High Court while granting bail was the possibility that he was arrested without following the procedure under Section 41-A, and the procedure pertaining to production of accused before Magistrate under Sections 80 and 81 CrPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi had called upon the State of Jharkhand to file an affidavit explaining its officers' actions to consider the question of arbitrary use of the police's power to arrest. It had also expressed the plausibility of initiating contempt proceedings for violating the principles of arrest law laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, after pursuing the States' affidavit in this regard.
Considering the petition filed by the State of Jharkhand against the Single Judge's order, a Bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli was perturbed to prima facie note the blatant transgression by the officers of the State enforcement authority and their disregard for law in making the arrest of the media journalist.
"See, how the State of Jharkhand is harassing a journalist. This is an excess of State power."
Justice Chandrachud expressed concerns regarding the manner in which Chatterjee was pulled out of his house and arrested.
"You go to his house at 12 o'clock at night, pull him out of his bedroom...This is no way to treat a media journalist. This is complete lawlessness."
The Counsel for the State submitted that, "there are 34 cases against this gentleman. All blackmailing and extortion."
Justice Chandrachud reckoned, "But, he is not a terrorist. He is a journalist...We will not interfere with an interim order of the High Court...You (Counsel for the State) raise your concerns before the High Court."
The journalist's wife had approached the High Court alleging that the arrest was made without following the due process of law. It was submitted that the petitioner's husband was arrested at midnight between July 16th and 17th, 2022, from his residence in Ranchi. Moreover, it appears that the family members were not allowed to meet the arrested journalist. The Dhanbad police came to Ranchi without intimation to the local police and flouted the due procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 of CrPC, it was alleged. The police did not issue any notice under Section 41-A CrPC. According to the wife, the case against her husband is false and is aimed at harassing him for broadcasting a story against corruption. The petitioner had referred to Dhanbad police as 'higher ups shut the mouth of one of the pillars of the democracy.'
The High Court observed that based on the entire documents prima facie, it appears that before obtaining the warrant of arrest from the concerned Court, no notice under Section 41-A CrPC was issued to the petitioner's husband to cooperate in the investigation. Moreover, friends and relatives were not allowed to meet the arrested journalist, despite several directions from the Supreme Court and several High Courts.
Considering the gravity of the issue the High Court had refused to decline relief in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution merely on the issue of maintainability.
"Prima facie, it appears that the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar and D.K. Basu (supra) has not been followed and in those cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent that if the directions are not followed by the police officials, contempt proceeding can be initiated against the erring officer(s) in the High Court having territorial jurisdiction,"
The High Court had held that the petitioner had been arrested without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 80 and 81 Cr.P.C. and not produced before the Court of any Magistrate at Ranchi.
"The documents on the record suggest that the informant has been called upon to face enquiry by the concerned officer including the Deputy Commissioner. The police is having power of arrest and whether that power can be utilized arbitrarily that too in a case of person, who is a journalist, shall be considered later on after filing of the affidavit of other side."
[Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Baby Chatterjee And Ors.]
Click Here To Read/Download Order