Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified and not routine.

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.41 of 2025 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 11(i) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. The 1^st petitioner is the consulting editor and the 2^nd petitioner is the sub editor-digital of a malayalam news channel known by the name as ‘Reporter’.

4. The prosecution case is that on 06.01.2025 during the television coverage of Kerala State School Youth Festival, which was held in Thiruvananthapuram, the Reporter Channel aired a teleskit portraying the participants of the Oppana competition, wherein the 2^nd petitioner acted as a spectator, who was having a conversation with one of the teammates, who was dressed up as the ‘Manavatti’ of the Oppana Team. It is also stated that the specific allegation against the 1^st petitioner is that on 08.01.2025, he was having a conversation with other reporters in the news programme and he made remarks about the ‘Manavatti’ and the reporter, who was portrayed as a spectator. He said that it was better for two of them to not see each other again.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. Adv.R.Krishnaraj filed an impleading petition stating that he also filed a complaint for the same set of facts.

6. Public Prosecutor submitted that no crime is registered based on the complaint filed by the client of Adv.Krishnaraj.

7. This Court asked Adv.Krishnaraj about his authority to implead in a bail application filed by an accused as a third person. The counsel submitted that he wants to submit the facts before this Court. I am of the prima facie opinion that, a third person has no right to implead in a bail application. But, even then this Court heard Adv. Krishnaraj in detail.

8. Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no intention to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, Section 35 (3) of BNSS notice alone is issued.

9. If that is the case, there is no apprehension of arrest to the petitioners. Section 35 (3) of BNSS says that the police ofÏcer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. The Senior Counsel Adv.Vijayabhanu, appearing for the petitioner takes me through (5) of . It says that where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police ofÏcer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. Hence it is submitted that, there is apprehension of arrest.

10. Adv.Krishna Raj takes me through the conversation between the petitioners and also with the victim. I am of the prima facie opinion that these conversation may not amounts to any criminal offence. But, may be inappropriate questions, which ought to have been avoided by the petitioners, especially when they are senior reporters of a channel. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail can be granted to the petitioners. I make it clear that the observations in this order is only for the purpose of considering this bail application and investigating ofÏcer is free to investigate the matter untrammeled by any observations in this order.

11. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception