2002 (1) TMI 1344 - HC - Indian Laws

Investigative journalist granted bail with strict conditions to protect investigation integrity.

The High Court allowed the bail petition of an investigative journalist, permitting his release with strict conditions to safeguard the investigation's ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of a direct petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the High Court.2. Merits of the bail petition.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of a Direct Petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code:The petitioner, an investigative journalist, filed a bail petition directly under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to the High Court, bypassing the Sessions Court. The respondent opposed this, citing judgments that suggest it is desirable to approach the lower court first.Section 439 of the CrPC provides special powers to the High Court or Sessions Court regarding bail. It states that either court may direct that any person accused of an offense and in custody be released on bail. The section has been interpreted by various courts to mean that there is no statutory prohibition against a direct petition to the High Court. The Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in *Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Prem Chand and Ors.* and the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in 1976 Cri. L.J. 1142 (All.) have ruled that a person can approach the High Court directly under Section 439 without first moving the Sessions Court.The Supreme Court in *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab* emphasized that words of width and amplitude in statutory provisions designed to secure personal freedom should not be cut down by imposing restrictions not intended by the legislature. Similarly, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in *Y. Chandrasekhara Rao v. Y.N. Kamala Kumari* ruled that the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court allows the affected party to choose the forum that is more convenient.A learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in 1985 Cri. L.J. 214 (Kar.) suggested that while it is desirable to approach the Sessions Court first, the High Court can entertain a direct petition in exceptional cases. This view was reiterated in *Smt. Savitri Samson v. State of Karnataka, 2001(4) Kar. L.J. 283*, where it was ruled that in exceptional circumstances, the High Court may entertain a direct application for bail.In light of these precedents, the court concluded that there is no statutory prohibition against entertaining a direct petition under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner made a special case due to the sensitivity of the matter and the involvement of a notorious criminal, thus justifying the direct approach to the High Court.2. Merits of the Bail Petition:The principles governing bail involve a balance between the custody and liberty of an accused person. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, and the law of bail has evolved to protect this right while ensuring public safety and the integrity of the judicial process.The Supreme Court in *Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat* emphasized that the power to grant bail should not be exercised as if imposing punishment before trial. The primary considerations are whether the accused will be available for trial and whether they are likely to tamper with evidence.In *Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh*, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters. The basic rule, as stated in *State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand*, is 'bail, not jail,' except in circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.In the present case, the petitioner was initially charged with a bailable offense and was in police custody for 13 days. During this time, he made a voluntary statement implicating himself in harboring a notorious criminal. However, the petitioner is an investigative journalist, and his interactions with the criminal could be part of his journalistic activities. The petitioner also acted as a government emissary during the Dr. Rajkumar kidnap episode and cooperated with the police in other investigations.The court noted that the materials recovered from the petitioner were related to his journalistic activities. The petitioner's role as a government emissary and his cooperation with the police suggested that he was unlikely to tamper with evidence or flee from justice. The court imposed strict conditions to ensure that the petitioner's release would not hamper the ongoing investigation.Conditions for Bail:- The petitioner shall not leave the city limits of Mysore without prior permission from the Commissioner of Police, Mysore.- He shall surrender his passport to the police authority.- He shall report his attendance to the Commissioner of Police, Mysore daily between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.- He shall accompany the police for further investigation as required.- He shall not influence, intimidate, or tamper with witnesses.- He shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer.The grant of bail was made effective from 18-2-2002, with the petitioner to remain in judicial custody until then. The court also ordered that the petitioner be provided with proper food and that his rights under Article 23 of the Constitution not be violated during his custody.Conclusion:The court allowed the bail petition, subject to strict conditions, recognizing the petitioner's right to personal liberty while ensuring that the investigation would not be compromised. The petitioner's direct approach to the High Court was justified due to the special circumstances of the case.