Back
Denies to Journalist for Impersonating GPCB Officers
In a significant ruling on , the rejected the plea of a journalist accused of impersonating officers of the to extort money from a factory owner. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, presiding over the single bench, observed that is a serious and declined to grant the .
The Case: A Journalist's Alleged Role in an Extortion Scheme
The applicant, Vivek Pratapray Maheta, a journalist by profession, was implicated in an FIR registered at for offences under various sections of the , including Sections 204, 308(6), 61(2)(a), 351(3), 319(2), and 112. The allegations stem from an incident where Maheta, along with other accused, reportedly visited a factory, represented themselves as GPCB officers, recorded videos of contaminated water, and demanded Rs 21,000 to delete the footage. The complainant alleged that the money was paid under duress.
The prosecution's case revealed that the same was employed in another similar offence on the same day, leading to a second FIR at . Statements from co-accused Ajaybhai Jesingbhai Jadav and Hemantbhai Batukbhai Shekhwa indicated that the group had planned the operation together and later distributed the extorted amount.
Arguments: Journalist's Defence vs. State's Opposition
, appearing for Maheta, argued that his client was not named in the FIR and was implicated solely based on . He emphasized that Maheta was a genuine press reporter who had visited the factory in his professional capacity to document pollution. The defence contended that there was no allegation of Maheta personally demanding money, and no recovery was made from him. The applicant offered full cooperation with the investigation and sought on grounds that was unnecessary.
Countering these submissions, Additional Public Prosecutor argued that two similar offences were registered on the same day, indicating a planned criminal enterprise. The state highlighted that the co-accused, who were arrested, specifically named Maheta in their statements, detailing his involvement from the planning stage. The prosecution asserted that was essential to unearth the full conspiracy and the distribution of proceeds.
Court's Reasoning: Circumstances Weigh Against Bail
The High Court meticulously examined the material collected during investigation. Justice Thaker noted that it was undisputed that Maheta had accompanied the other accused in a car belonging to his wife. The court observed that the applicant was aware that his companions were not genuine GPCB officers, yet he participated in the impersonation.
Addressing the , the court cited the 's judgment in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav
() 7 SCC 528, holding that such statements serve as valuable clues for investigation. The court stated:
"At the time of investigation, statement of co-accused provides clues to the investigating agency as to how to investigate the case and thereafter the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence against the person who has been named as accused."
The court dismissed the defence that Maheta did not personally demand money, noting that his association with the other accused from the beginning, his knowledge of their false identities, and the use of his wife's car were significant factors. Justice Thaker remarked:
"Therefore, at this stage, the fact that the applicant did not personally demand the amount cannot be considered by itself."
Key Observations: Impersonation is a Serious Offence
The judgment opened with a stern observation:
"
is a serious act as it misuses the authority attached to the office."
The court underscored that the protection of is an meant only for cases where the accused is . Citing
Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar
() 4 SCC 379, the court reiterated that such relief requires and a view that the applicant would not misuse liberty.
The court further noted the alarming pattern of two similar offences on the same day, reflecting a premeditated scheme.
"Considering the material available on record, the specific circumstances connecting the applicant with the other accused, the nature of the allegations and two complaints of similar nature filed on the same day by two different complainants at two different police stations, this Court is not inclined to grant the
of
to the applicant,"
Justice Thaker concluded.
Decision and Implications
The High Court rejected the application and discharged the rule. The court clarified that its observations were tentative and should not prejudice the trial or other proceedings. This ruling sends a strong message that the misuse of public office authority, even by association, will be viewed seriously, and will not be granted lightly in cases involving planned criminality. The case underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting the integrity of public institutions and ensuring thorough investigation in cases of impersonation.
