The judgment emphasizes the importance of protecting the freedom of the press and journalists' ability to carry out their journalistic endeavors.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a Journalist and working with ABP Ananda. In support of such contention he relies upon the identity card of the petitioner issued by such network. He submits that, the petitioner took videography of illegal sand mining. Thereafter, one after another police complaints are being filed as against him falsely implicating him.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the materials in the Case Diary. He submits that, the petitioner is guilty of extortion of money from different persons in the locality.

4. We perused the materials in the Case Diary.

5. Apparently, petitioner is working as a Journalist with TV Channel. Petitioner claims that he recorded illegal sand mining activities in pursuit of his journalist endeavours.

6. There is an issue of false implication arising out of his journalistic work Freedom of press is indespensible to democracy.

7. Freedom of press can be maintained by ringfencing the press from intimidation. A journalist is part of the press. His freedom to execute his journalistic endeavours needs to be protected.

8. In such circumstances, we grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer once in a month till the conclusion of investigation and on condition that the petitioner shall appear on every date before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court.

10. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

CRM(A) 127 of 2024 is disposed of.