Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To YouTuber Accused Of Taking Drone Shots Of Puri Jagannath Temple

While denying relief to the petitioner, the single judge bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash said:

“It is expected from a law-abiding citizen more particularly from a person in the stature of the Petitioner who claims to have gained experience of getting photographs and videograph of the monuments and heritage of importance irrespective of being a tourist or freelancer to adhere to a minimum caution by obtaining permission from the temple authority, if at all he had intention to take the over view of the Temple or its surroundings. Absence of it raises the question of bonafideness.”

Factual Background

The petitioner, who is a freelance tourist and a YouTuber by profession, visited Puri in the month of September. He also claimed to be a registered drone-operator. As the mobile app of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) did not show the Lord Jagannath Temple of Puri as ‘no flying zone’, he navigated his drone over the Temple premises for approximately five minutes and collected some photographs and videos of the temple.

Later on, he also uploaded a video on his YouTube channel. However, after receiving complaints, he withdrew the shared contents acknowledging his mistake and realising that the same might hurt the religious sentiments of the devotees of Lord Jagannath. He also released a video on his channel apologising for the mistake.

Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Singhadwara Police Station, Puri alleging that the petitioner captured the photographs and also obtained video-clips of the temple and uploaded the same on his YouTube channel, which was circulated for commercial purposes. It was alleged that as the temple premises have been declared as ‘red zone’ as per the Drone Rules, 2021, he committed offences under Section 10(2) of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Section 30(A)(4)(c) of the Jagannath Temple Act, 1955

Notably Section 30A(4)(c) of the Jagannath Temple Act reads: “Whoever takes inside the premises of the Temple any article knowing that the taking of such article is prohibited under any law or custom or by any declaration made and published in the prescribed manner by the Committee with due regard to the prevailing custom, public health, morality or the religious sentiments of the public; shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.”

Similarly, Section 10(2) of the Aircraft Act provides penalty for act in contravention of rule made under the Act.

Contentions

Srikar Kumar Rath, counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR is vague as the DGCA and the CEO of the temple administration have not granted any sanction to lodge the complaint, which is a mandatory requirement. Therefore, he argued, the entire exercise is nothing but misuse and colourable exercise of power to penalize, harass and tarnish the image of the petitioner.

On the other side, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel for the State strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner as a registered drone operator ought to have regards for the restrictions. It was contended that he cannot take a plea that the DGCA app did not reveal such a restriction, the app might not have detected the same since the drone was navigated over 400 ft. height.

He further submitted that the petitioner has not only violated the law but also hurt the religious sentiments of the devotees of Lord Jagannath and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the pre-arrest bail.

Court’s Observations

After hearing the submission made by both the sides, the Court noted that the temple of Lord Jagannath has been declared as a ‘red zone’ and thereby, flying drone over the same attracts offences under Section 10(2) of the Aircraft Act and Section 30A(4)(c) of the Jagannath Temple Act. It also held that the attempt of the petitioner in violating the Rule is prima facie ‘writ large’.

“Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri has been designated a monument of national importance by the Archaeological Survey and is a centrally protected monument. It is said, such monuments and heritage are treasure for a nation and symbol of pride of our civilization besides the religious belief. They help us to appreciate our past and the level of development, knowledge and thoughts. In a way, they provide life to our past. It is an onerous duty of every individual irrespective of caste, creed, religion and place to protect and preserve the sanctity, safety and security of such monuments more so when it attaches a belief and sentiment of a cult. Invasion thereto, in absence of a bonafideness under the guise or pretext of ignorance of the rule cannot be taken as an excuse”, the Court added.

The single judge bench also said that the petitioner could have exercised the minimum caution by obtaining permission from the temple administration before flying the drone. Absence of such an effort made it to doubt his bona fides. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail was rejected.

Case Title: Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha

Case No.: ABLAPL No. 16622 of 2022

Order Dated: 5^th January 2023

Coram: Chittaranjan Dash, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Srikar Kumar Rath, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 1

Click Here To Read/Download Order