Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ansul, J
Rishu Shree – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32409 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nandita Rao, Arshadeep Singh Khurana, Kumaresh Singh, Ujjwal Raj, Shruti, Anirvan Choudhary, Jyoti Prakash, Sahil Kumar
For the Respondents: Arvind Kumar, Zohaib Hossain, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Pranjal Tripathi, Vishal Kumar Singh, Utsav
The court balanced the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(A) with the right to a fair trial, ruling that while media can report factual developments, it cannot impute guilt or conduct 'media trials' against an accused before the trial's conclusion.
Headnote:The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings in Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025. The court examined the balance between the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(A) and the right to a fair trial, noting that the petitioner was subjected to extensive media trials and prejudicial reporting portraying him as guilty before the commencement of trial, which potentially violates the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) regarding defamation and decency. Issues framed include whether the freedom of press permits the imputation of guilt on an accused during sub-judice matters and the extent to which the court can restrain irresponsible reporting to ensure a fair trial. The court reasoned that while it does not support a total 'media gag', reporting must be factual and objective, as a 'trial by press' is the antithesis of the rule of law. Pending consideration of the present petition all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms shall be at liberty to report the factual developments concerning the case and proceedings before competent courts, subject to specific restraints against imputing guilt.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural requirements for adding necessary parties and filing counter-affidavits in quashing petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. impact of prejudicial media coverage on the accused's right to a fair trial. (Para 7 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. constitutional balance between article 19 freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions to prevent defamation and media trials. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. judicial power to restrict irresponsible reporting and the imputation of guilt while maintaining factual reporting. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
Heard the parties.
2. The instant application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pertaining to Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025.
3. Counsel for the ED, Mr. Zohaib Hossain appeared and he stated that in the round of litigation in connection with same FIR, the petitioner has filed Cr.WJC No. 1046 of 2025 in which they added as a party but here they have not been added as a party.
4. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to add Enforcement Directorate as party respondent.
5. Mr. Zohaib Hossain, counsel for the ED seeks time to file counter affidavit to bring the materials available on record.
6. Counsel for the SVU also seeks time to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit must explain the reasons for delay of one year in conducting the raid after registration of FIR.
7. Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Nandita Roy, Sr. Adv. Has stated that one more thing is very relevant in this case that an FIR was registered and after more than a year of registration of FIR raid was conducted in the residential premises on 27.05.2026 and he was arrested on the same date. She states that in the raid nothing incriminating was found against him still after arrest various television channels, newspapers, online news portal and social media handles commenced extensive and lurid coverage of the case, broadcasting one sided narratives, unverified allegations and prejudicial content that portrays the petitioner as guilty even before commencement of trial. Several prime time news debates were conducted by prominent TV anchors wherein the petitioner was condemned, vilified and subjected to public humiliation without any opportunity to present his side. Such coverage has direct effect of influencing public opinion against the petitioner, prejudicing the minds of potential witnesses and creating an atmosphere inimical to fair trial.
8. She further states that in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi , reported in (1997) 8 SCC 386, unequivocally stated that “ A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law.”
9. In M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal reported in (2005) 2 SCC 686 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not proper for the press or the electronic media to project a one sided picture of events before the public in matters which are sub-judice.
10. In Sahara India real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 603, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the courts have the power to impose prior restraints on publications in exceptional cases where there exists a real and substantial risk.
11. This court has gone through the annexures in the Interlocutory Applications No. 01 of 2026.
12. There is a report where the heading is Bihar’s Curious Case of an indispensable engineer: What an ED probe found. Another report says Bihar Police searches houses of two IAS officers over tender scam. In another news, the photograph of the petitioner is there and it says: Tender scam accused Rishu avoids direct answers, denies wrongdoing. One news writes: “As the Bihar government’s focus is on development and infrastructure projects worth thousands of crores, Rishu Sinha created a network to pay a decent commission to government officials for securing tenders”. One newspaper states that: ED raids 7 places in Patna and kept
