On May 9, the interim bail of Times Now Navbharat reporter Bhawana Kishore was extended till May 22 by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Her associates, cameraperson Mritunjay Kumar and driver Parmender Singh Rawat, were also granted interim bail. In its order, the high court said that the arrest and the judicial custody of Kumar and Rawat by police and magistrate were illegal, and the same was done mechanically without considering the charges slapped against them.
In the order, the High Court said that the duty officer who arrested the driver and cameraperson did not inform them that they had the option to submit bail bonds as the allegations against them were bailable. Furthermore, the court said the petitioners were deprived of their life and personal liberty by sending them to judicial custody in a mechanical way despite the fact that it was necessary for the investigation.
The Punjab police booked Bhawana, Parmender and Mritunjay for allegedly injuring a 50-year-old woman and using casteist slurs against her during an argument after the accident. Bhawana was accused of using derogatory language. Parmender was charged with recklessly driving the vehicle. Mritunjay was accused of getting into an argument with the victim.
The Judicial Magistrate and Special Court sent all three to 14-day judicial custody on 6 May. However, the High Court granted them interim bail on the same day. Times Now has alleged a conspiracy was hatched against its employees in retaliation to Operation Sheesh Mehel wherein Times Now Navbharat exposed details of “ultra-lavish and disproportionate expenditure incurred in refurbishing the official residence of the Delhi CM”.
In an official statement after Bhawana and the other two were granted bail, the channel said, “In a bizarre turn of events on May 05, Bhawana Kishore, along with cameraman Mrityunjay Kumar and Driver Parminder Singh who went to cover a political program presided by Arvind Kejriwal in Ludhiana were implicated in a staged road accident case and falsely accused of using casteist remarks against a group of women, believed to be AAP workers, who in an e-rickshaw first rammed into the team’s car, got into a brawl and called the Ludhiana police. Bhawana Kishore’s illegal arrest violated several rules, including being detained without a lady police officer, arrest post sunset, denial of legal and telephone access and being forced to sign documents in Gurmukhi, a language she didn’t understand. Mrityunjay, who was just a passenger in the Car involved in the alleged accident, was illegally and unnecessarily detained and has spent four nights in Jail in gross disrespect of his dignity as a citizen.”
Times Now Navbharat Vindicated:
— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) May 9, 2023
Punjab and Haryana High Court grants interim bail to Bhawana Kishore, Video Journalist Mrityunjay and driver Parminder. pic.twitter.com/7SZq1DlxRy
The channel added, “This incident which has raised National concern over the gross and deliberate misuse of State powers along with the malicious use of the SC/ST Act, has gathered tremendous public support. The distressed families of the trio and Times Network welcome the judgment with great relief. This reinstates our belief that truth can never be silenced, no matter how devious the oppressors. This is a testament to Times Now Navbharat’s commitment to fearless journalism. We will continue to raise uncomfortable questions to those in power without fear of consequences.”
High Court’s remarks at the time of interim bail to Parmender and Mritunjay
On May 9, Punjab and Haryana High Court heard the arguments for the interim bail petition of driver Parmender and cameraperson Mritunjay. The counsel informed that petitioner two and petitioner 3 (Mritunjay and Parmender) were not booked under SC/ST Act, and the Sections they were booked under were bailable. Thus they deserve interim bail as Bhawana.
The allegations against Mritunjay were only regarding getting into an argument with the victim. The accusations against Parmender were regarding recklessly driving the vehicle leading to injuries and damage to the phone. The council said the officer did not give them the option to submit bail bonds, which should have been done, considering the offences were bailable.
Furthermore, the council said Duty Magistrate granted judicial remand despite the fact that it was not necessary for the investigation and the petitioners should have been released on bail. When they were presented in the Special Court, Ludhiana, the court “acted mechanically” and granted Judicial Remand without verifying and ascertaining the nature of the offences they allegedly committed. The counsel pointed out that the police did not seek police remand either, showing custody was not necessary for the investigation.
The counsel appearing for the state said the petitioners did not avail themselves of the remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC. However, the council could not be able to support it if the judicial custody given by Judicial Magistrate and the Special Court were in accordance with the law, as no no-bailable offences against the duo were made out. However, he insisted that they were legal as the competent court remanded them to judicial custody.
Replying to the matter of non-availing the remedy to approach the trial court before approaching the High Court under Section 439 of the CrPC, the petitioners’ counsel said they could not be kept in custody merely because they approached the High Court first.
The Court noted that based on the submissions made by the counsels, reading of the FIR and short reply submitted by the state, it was found that the factual aspect in reference to the allegations against the duo did not make out an offence that would be non-bailable.
The court said, “Under those circumstances, firstly, the officer, who had taken these two petitioners in custody, could not have done so without making them aware of the fact that they could avail of the remedy of release on submission of bail bonds or surety. The same would be the position regarding the order of remand at the hands of the Duty Magistrate and the Special Court. It appears that at no stage the provisions of the Statute were actually gone into or seen. Mechanically, initially, the Arresting Officer and after that, the Judicial Officers proceeded to pass orders of arrest and remand.”
Calling the judicial remand illegal, the court said, “Continuance of a citizen in custody without there being a mandate of law, i.e. illegal custody, cannot be permitted.”
Slammi the magistrate’s court for the ‘mechanical remand order, the high court added, “A Court and that too, a Constitutional Court when comes to know of the same, cannot shut its eyes to the same.” The court questioned if it was appropriate for a citizen to continue in incarceration when it is not only apparent from the allegations but an undisputed position that the two petitioners did not commit the alleged offences that were non-bailable.
As the complainant has to be informed about the proceedings and the state needs to submit its response, the court granted the state ten days to submit the reply regarding the petition to quash the FIR. The next date of hearing has been set to May 22.
The court further extended the interim bail of Bhawana Kishore till May 22.
High Court’s remarks at the time of interim bail to Bhawana Kishore
On May 6, after the sessions court denied interim bail to Bhawana Kishore and others and sent them to judicial custody, they approached Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Augustine George Masih heard the petition in the matter. Bhawana’s counsel informed the court that the allegations against her could not be made as Bhawana did not meet Gagan earlier.
It was mentioned that the allegations made it clear they never met before the incident. Thus the question of using the casteist slurs mentioned by the complainant did not arise. Having considered the submissions, the non-bailable offence under SC/ST Act was not committed, and the offences under IPC Sections were bailable.
The counsel further informed the court that all three accused were in Ludhiana to attend the inauguration of Government run clinics on an invitation received from the Media coordinator. Attributing to her health, age and profession, the counsel sought interim bail for Bhawana.
Advocate General appearing for Punjab Government stated that the complainant has to be informed before granting bail to the accused and sought time. He further added that the allegations made against Bhawana were serious and did not deserve the benefit of interim bail.
In its order, the High Court said after going through the FIR, it was prima facie clear that the offence under the SC/ST act was not made out at that state. Because petitioner no 1 (Bhawana) is a woman and a senior correspondent of the National Network, she deserves to be granted interim bail in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
FIR against Bhawana, Parmender and Mritunjay
On May 5, a 50-year-old woman identified as Gagan filed a complaint at Division 3 police station in Police Commissionerate Ludhiana district against Times Now Navbharat reporter Bhawana Kishore, driver Parmender Singh Rawat and cameraperson Mritunjay Kumar. An FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3X and 4 of the SC and the ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ACT were filed against them.
In her complaint, Gagan said she was going to attend the inauguration of Mohalla Clinic by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann. A car hit the vehicle from behind when she was coming out of the e-rikshaw near Shringar Cinema. While trying to escape the accident, Gagan allegedly injured her left arm, and her mobile phone broke down. She claimed that driver Parmender was driving the car recklessly.
When she approached the driver and questioned why he hit her, the driver allegedly argued with her. Meanwhile, Gagan claimed Mrityunjay and Bhawana exited the vehicle and started arguing with her. She accused Bhawana of saying, “Tum neech jaati wale chamaar logon ka yehi kaam hai, tum log gaadi walon se paise ainthne ke liye kisi bhi hadd tak gir sakte ho (This is the work of you low caste Chamar people, you can stoop to any extent to extort money from the car owners).”
Gagan claimed in her complaint that Bhawana used casteist slurs against her that hurt her sentiments. She further asked the police to book the trio under appropriate IPC and SC/ST Act sections.
Based on her complaint, the police mentioned in the FIR that a case of SC/ST was booked against Bhawana and others. Appropriate Sections of the IPC were also imposed against the accused.
