Allowed

Madankumar Ravichandran v. State Represented by

Madras HC9 Oct 2020CRL OP/14517/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to a journalist accused of aggravated acts promoting enmity for uploading an interview containing controversial statements, imposing conditions including reporting to police, identity verification, and forbidding tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with booking of some property by way of surety and other mandatory directions.

Madankumar Ravichandran Vs State Represented by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.14517 of 2020

¶6

Madankumar Ravichandran

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Central Crime Branch, Commissioner Office Campus, Vepery, Chennai (Cr.No.257 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.257 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Baaskaran For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (This case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 153 (A), 295 (A), 298 (A), 505 (1), 505 (2) and Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.257 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant viz., Sivaji, is that he is the founder and leader of ghuj; Kz;zzp. ghuj; Foy; On 23.07.2020, he watched a programme on YouTube titled as “ ,e;J kjj;ij xHpf;Fk; tiu v';fs; nghuhl;lk; bjhlUk;“ In that programme, Director Velu Prabhakaran had given an exclusive interview, and he was interviewed by the petitioner, and thereafter, the video had become viral. In the interview the said Director Velu Prabakaran had deliberately uttered words promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religious and race and also insulted religious with an intent to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wound and outrage religious feelings and beliefs.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Journalist and he had previously worked in many leading Channels. Thereafter, he has joined in a YouTube Channel, viz., News Glitz-Next Generation Tamil News Channel and he as a journalist had interviewed the Film Director Velu Prabakaran. The said interview was given by Velu Prabakaran and the petitioner cannot be responsible for the words uttered by the Director. He would further submit that there is no previous case as against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had interviewed one Film Director Velu Prabakar in the Channel News Glitz and the programme was titled as ,e;J kjj;ij xHpf;Fk; tiu v';fs; nghuhl;lk; bjhlUk;. He would further submit that though the Guest/Director Velu Prabakaran who is the person who had given interview had uttered the words, the petitioner as responsible Journalist should have censored those things. Whereas, he has uploaded the interview so as to create enmity and ill-feeling between the religious groups. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of the order is made ready, before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶16

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶17

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶18

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶21

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶22

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶23

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶24

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶26

1 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI.

¶27

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CYBER CRIME BRANCH, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, COMMISSIONER OFFICE CAMPUS, VEPERY, CHENNAI.

¶29

+1 CC to M/S. N.BAASKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.6766

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cs 20/10/2020

Madankumar Ravichandran v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madankumar Ravichandran v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Dinesh Vs the State Rep.by

S.Paulraj Vs State Rep. by

Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State Rep. by

Maadhu Vs State Rep.by

Arulprakasam Vs the State Rep. by Its

P.Sarathkumar Vs the Intelligence Officer