New Delhi, June 18 The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to a Kerala-based journalist, who was booked over a YouTube video allegedly insulting the modesty and causing damage to the reputation of a prominent woman politician.
A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by journalist Nandakumar T.P. against the order of the Kerala High Court dismissing his anticipatory bail plea.
Issuing notice on Nandakumar’s SLP seeking pre-arrest bail, the Justice Mehta-led Bench ordered that in the event of the petitioner’s arrest, he will be released on bail but will continue to cooperate with the police probe.
As per the computerised case status, the matter is tentatively listed for further hearing on August 5.
The prosecution alleged Nandakumar published a video against the complainant, a prominent woman politician, on his YouTube channel "Crime Online" using derogatory and threatening words and by using sexually coloured remarks.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 75(1)(iv), 79 and 351(1)(2) of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
As per the SLP, the police have not issued any notice to Nandakumar, which is mandatory to be issued under BNSS,2023. It contended that the petitioner has not used any sexually explicit words, gestures or visuals in the YouTube video, and there is a complete absence of any expression or act that could be construed as intending to outrage the modesty of women.
"The petitioner is not the author of the alleged sexually coloured /defamatory remarks in question and the complaint lacks the necessary ingredient of Section 75(i)(iv), 79&351(1)(2)of BNS Act 2023 and Section 67 of IT Act 2000," said the petition filed through advocate Aswathi M.K.
It added that complainant Sindhu Joy — settled in the UK for the past several years — is a former politician of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, the current ruling party in Kerala, and after resigning from the CPI-M, she joined the Congress party.
"The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case without any iota of evidence. Even if the entire allegations are accepted prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The prosecution has to prove the case through oral evidence, and hence, custodial interrogation is not necessary," contended the SLP.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor