ORDER :

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

1. Admit.

2. Sr. Advocate and Additional Director General of Prosecutions Sri. Gracious Kuriakose takes notice for respondents 1 to 5. Notice by Special Messenger to the 6th respondent.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as the third accused in Crime No.6 of 2022 of Crime Branch Police Station pursuant to Ext. P1 FIR dated 9-1-2022 alleging commission of offences under Sections 116, 118, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. A report was filed on 4-1-2022 by the Investigating Officer changing S. 120 B to Section 120 B (1) for adding offence under Section 302 of IPC.

4. The 5th respondent herein, the de facto complainant, Mr. Baiju Paulose, Dy. S.P., Crime Branch also happens to be one of the Investigating Officers in Crime No. 297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station registered on 18-2-20217. In the said case, initially there were only 7 accused but pursuant to the final report dated 22-11-2017, Mr. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner and a film actor was also arrayed as the 8th accused.

5. The allegation in Ext. P1 FIR is due to the enmity of the accused in Crime No. 297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, arising from the arrest and implication of Sri. Dileep in the said Crime, the accused in Ext. P1 FIR conspired, instigated and abetted to do away with the fifth respondent and other officers in the investigation team of Crime No. 297/2017. It was alleged that this conspiracy was committed on 15-2-2017 and it was seen and heard by one Mr. Balachandrakumar. It is further submitted that petitioner along with his brothers-in-law Mr. Dileep and Anoop had filed applications seeking anticipatory bail from this Court and by a common order dated 29-01-2022 in Bail Application Nos. 248/2022, 288/2022 and 300/2022, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners vide Ext. P4 order holding prima facie that the offences alleged were not attracted. Reference was also made to certain comments made in the media about the manner in which this Court considered the bail applications. The media was reminded that its right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be a license to abuse the justice delivery system by persons who have little or no knowledge of the fundamental legal principles. The learned Senior counsel submits that notwithstanding the said observations in Ext. P4, the 6th respondent continued interfering and reporting about the investigation worsening the situation. It is further alleged that respondents 3 to 5 are leaking out materials allegedly collected during investigation and including those from the in camera trial in S.C. 118/2018 and the same is forming the basis for the false and fabricated stories in the media. Though the judicial First Class Court, Angamally had passed an order dated 17-1-2018, Ext. P5 including strictures against the 5th respondent herein and had pointed out that the publications had its impact on the administration of justice, such publications in the media continued. It is further alleged that the trial in S.C. 118/2018 conducted in camera and inspite of the prohibition under Section 327(3) of the Cr.P.C., publications in violation thereof are being made and Sessions Court had passed Ext. P6 order specifically prohibits publishing of proceedings except those permitted under the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and Another v. Union of India [(2019) 2 SCC 703].

6. The 6th respondent using his online news portal named Reporter and their Television Channel named Reporter TV, has been telecasting items regarding the cases in question from 25-12-2021 onwards fabricating more and more allegations against Mr. Dileep and the petitioner about matters which are sub judice in the ongoing trial and the pending investigation. It is alleged that Mr. M.V. Nikesh Kumar, is the Chief Executive Officer of the 6th respondent and that he was cited as a prosecution witness in the pending trial. It is further alleged that inspite of Mr. D