IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh – Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary (Home) - Opposite Party
Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. 6712 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Publication - Misuse of Publication for Coercion - IPC 386, 389, 504, 506 - The judgment discusses the misuse of publication for coercion, the principles of civil discourse, the distinction between legitimate dissent and abusive language, the secular principles, and the ethical standards expected of journalists.
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant, Amit Maurya, with a prayer to release him on bail in a case involving allegations of coercion, bribery, hate speech, and misuse of publication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in granting bail to the applicant due to the gravity of the allegations, including the misuse of publication for extortion, propagation of abusive language against public figures, and disregard for religious sentiments.
Issues: The issues involved coercion, bribery, hate speech, misuse of publication, and the ethical standards expected of journalists.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the principles of civil discourse, the distinction between legitimate dissent and abusive language, the secular principles, and the ethical standards expected of journalists.
Final Decision: The bail application stands rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Mahima Maurya Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0259 of 2023, under sections 386, 389, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station – Lalpur, District–Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi), during pendency of trial.
3. As per the allegations in the FIR, the informant, serving as the Vice President of the Purvanchal Truck Owners Association, stands as the prime witness and key individual in the FIR lodged against R.S. Yadav, the A.R.T.O. of Chandauli. It is alleged that the informant was instrumental in pursuing the case against R.S. Yadav on behalf of the government, leading to Yadav's detention in jail for the past three years. Additionally, the informant was actively involved in pursuing cases seen by the Anti-Corruption Court. However, the applicant allegedly coerced the informant into refraining from pursuing the case against R.S. Yadav, offering a bribe of one crore rupees. Furthermore, the applicant demanded monthly payments of one lakh rupees from the informant, threatening to tarnish his reputation by publishing damaging articles in newspapers if his demands were not fulfilled. It is also alleged that the applicant resorted to sending threatening messages and engaging in verbal abuse towards the informant. Moreover, the applicant is accused of utilizing social media platforms to propagate hate speech against public figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, while also making derogatory remarks against religious figures.
4. In defense, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the allegations against the applicant are baseless and motivated by ulterior motives. They further contend that the applicant has no involvement in the cases against R.S. Yadav and is not associated with any criminal activities. Moreover, they highlight a publication made by the applicant regarding corrupt practices within the transport department, suggesting that this may have provoked the present FIR. The defense asserts that the applicant has never sent threatening messages to the informant nor visited his residence. They also emphasize the applicant's good family background and lack of criminal antecedents. Additionally, they assure the court that if granted bail, the applicant will cooperate fully with the trial proceedings and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant asserts that the applicant falsely presents himself as a press reporter/editor to conceal his illegal activities. They argue that the applicant has not obtained the necessary licenses or permissions for publishing news articles, and they question the authenticity of the publications made by the applicant. Furthermore, they claim that the applicant has a history of criminal behaviour, as detailed in the counter affidavit. The counsel alleges that the applicant has used social media platforms to propagate hate speech and has made derogatory remarks against public figures and religious figures. They also raise concerns regarding the applicant's use of multiple Aadhar cards for identity purposes.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Firstly, it is imperative to address the principle that if someone is engaged in corrupt practices, the appropriate course of action is to bring forth information to the public domain, allowing for transparency and accountability to prevail. It is the duty of journalists and publishers to disseminate factual information to the public, empowering them to make informed decisions. However, it is entirely unacceptable for publishers to exploit their platform for personal gain, resorting to coercive tactics under the gui
The judgment establishes the importance of upholding ethical standards in journalism, the principles of civil discourse, and the secular principles of democracy.
Point of Law : The word 'Promote' does not imply mere describing and narrating a fact, or giving opinion, criticising the point of view or actions of another person.
The legal point established is that to prosecute under Section 153 IPC, the act must be illegal, malignantly done, and result in a situation causing riot. Good faith publication by an editor is not i....
The publication of defamatory statements without substantiation violates the rights of the affected person, and intention or knowledge regarding reputational harm suffices for establishing defamation....
High Court had applied an altogether wrong approach by examining and evaluating the evidence in detail. The Court is not supposed to delve into the admissibility and inadmissibility of documentary an....
The limitations on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and the societal impact of hate speech.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.