On Saturday, in the matter of Sindu Suryakumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala, the Kerala Court granted pre-arrest bail to the employees of Asianet News alleged for airing a 'staged interview' of a minor girl who was made to say that she was a victim of drug abuse and sexual exploitation.

The Bench of Special Judge Priya K. noted that there were no serious allegations against the petitioners herein,

They are the officials of a news channel and they are apprehending that they will be put in jail, for broadcasting a news item. In a democratic country like India, which gives liberty to the fourth estate which are press and media, media personnel cannot be put in jail alleging criminal offences. If at all any offence is committed by them, it can only be decided after a fair trial".

Case Brief:

In the said matter, on November 10, 2022, the accused prepared a fabricated report and broadcasted the said news item namely 'Narcotic is a dirty business' with the intention to spread a misunderstanding amongst the general public that all government schools are under the influence of narcotic drugs.

In the video, a child in a school uniform had given information about the commission of offences under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). However, the petitioners had not informed the same to authorities. It was alleged that the said interview was a staged one and that the accused had impersonated the POCSO victim in the video to create the news.

The Counsel member for the Petitioner, Advocates P.V. Hari and Sushama M. submitted that they were alleged for a false case.

On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioners had committed offences of failure to report POCSO offences, forgery, cheating by personation, abetment of offences, criminal conspiracy and use of a child by an adult for illegal activities.

Counsel member further submitted that although notices had been issued to the petitioners for appearance before the police and for the production of documents, the same had not been done and the local police intended to file a report to add Section 23 (4) of POCSO Act, and that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary for the collection of evidence. It was emphasized that the petitioners would intimidate and influence the witnesses if they are released on bail.

"Considering all these aspects and also taking into account the nature of the allegation, the severity of punishment, the mode of registering the crime, remote chance of the petitioners interfering with the investigation, influencing the witnesses, and also fleeing from justice, pre arrest bail can be granted to the petitioners on condition," the Court declared.