IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No OF 2019
(A Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India)
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
IN THE MATTER OF:
Jagisha Arora sss Petitioner(s)
/Applicant(s)
VERSUS
‘The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
/Defendant (s)
AND WITH
Cri. M. P. No. of 2019
An Application for Interim Relief
AND WITH
Cri. M. P. No. of 2019
‘An Application for exemption from filing official translation of
documents
FOR PAPER-BOOK INDEX
KINDLY SEE INSIDE
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: SHADAN FARASAT»)
SYNOPSIS
This is a writ petition by the wife of 26 year old Prashant
Kanojia, a Hindi journalist who was unceremoniously taken
away by men in civil dress on 8.6.2019 from his Delhi
residence. It transpires that on 7.06.2019 the police officials
of PS Hazratganj, Lucknow had lodged an FIR against him
under Sections 500 IPC and 66 Information Technology Act,
2000 both of which bailable offences. Indeed the police can
have no role whatsoever to lodge any FIR in a case under
Section 500 IPC, which is criminal defamation, and requires
under Section 199, CrPC that the person aggrieved alone may
file a complaint before a Magistrate. Section 66 of the
Information Act carries a maximum sentence of 3 years which
is bailable in terms of section 77 B of the Act. The police was
bound to release him in Delhi itself in terms of Section 436
CrPC which mandates release on bail in bailable cases but
this statutory mandate was not even considered by the police.
Possibly in order to obviate any release on bail, in an FIR
carrying bailable offences only, the petitioner’s husband was
not produced before any Magistrate to seek a transit remand.
No arrest memo was prepared and neither the petitioner nor
her husband was told of why he was being taken and who the
“arresting officials” in civil dress were.I)
c
Much later, around 6 in the evening, a “press note” was
released by Hazrat Ganj police claiming that the petitioner’s
husband was held under Sections 500, 505 of IPC and
Section 67 IT Act. Two sections, ie. Section 505 IPC and
Section 67 IPC were obviously added because the FIR
contained only bailable offences. However, neither of these
sections are even prima-facie made out assuming without
admitting that the allegations are be correct. Section 505(1)
reads as follows:
“505-Statements conducing to public mischief-
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any
statement, rumour or report—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to
cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in
the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny
or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as
such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to
cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any
section of the public whereby any person may
be induced to commit an offence against the
State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite,
any class or community of persons to commit
any offence against any other class or
community, shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.”