Thread by @barandbench

[TRP Scam] Karnataka HC will shortly begin dictation of order in plea seeking anticipatory bail for Republic TV, COO, Priya Mukharjee.

@republic
@Republic_Bharat

#trpscam
#republictv

The order was reserved by Justice HP Sandesh yesterday after hearing the rival submissions.

@Republic_Bharat
@republic

#trpscam
#trp
#republictv

Follow this link to know what transpired in Court yesterday:

https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1331203960019902464?s=19

The Bench will begin dictating the order at 2:30 pm.

@Republic_Bharat
@republic

#trpscam
#republictv

Mukharjee had sought transit bail as she is apprehending arrest in the Fake Television Rating Points (TRP) Scam case registered by the Mumbai police.

@Republic_Bharat
@republic

#trp_scam

Court records Commissioner and other officers of Mumbai police have alleged that republic TV is involved in alleged fake TRP scam.

Court: Petitioner has sought Anticipatory bail before this court seeking transit bail for 20 days. It is said that she shall excercise her right to seek bail before competent court in Mumbai.

#republictv

Court observes that Petitioner has made out a ground that there is an apprehension of arrest in her case.

Petitioner counsel submits that this Court has ample power to excercise jurisdiction under Section 438 of CRPC: Court

It was contended by the respondent that the petitioners' name is also mentioned in the WP filed before Bombay HC. Resp submits that the petitioner is indulging in forum shopping: Court

Court noted that the respondent had made the foll submissions

- Averments made in this criminal plea is the replica of WP filed in Bombay HC.

- The HC had heard the parties at length and no relief was granted to her.

- Therefore she appeared before Karnataka HC.

- She did not annex the WP filed before Bombay HC before the Karnataka HC

- Instant application is gross abuse of process of law.

- Even prior to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was summoned on October 10 and same is also enclosed along.

- Petitioner appeared before the Karnataka Court with an intention to supress the grounds raised in the Petition before Bombay HC

- Petitioner has informed the police that she has a habit of deleting chats.

- Petitioner claims to have submitted an undertaking to the Mumbai Police stating that she would appear before them, however no such undertaking as been made.

- Petitioner has filed for anticipatory bail application and now seeks for transit bail. This prayer is not made in the petition.

@republic

Bench: This Court has to take note of the conduct of the petitioner and the WP filed in Bombay HC, though her name was not mentioned in it, prayer was sought for all employees of the Company.

Court: Can this Court grant transit bail under Section 438 of CrPC to Petitioner? What order?

Court: The main apprehension I'd the petitioner is that the Mumbai police commissioner has taken press conference and alleged involvement of republic TV

Court also mentions the contends of the FIR.

Bench: This court also can consider material on record - whether petitioner has made out a ground for transit bail.

Court relies to a Karnataka HC judgement passed in 1984.

Bench: In Varun Chandra Vs CBI, the Supreme Court made an observation on powers under section 438 of CrPC.

The Court informs that the factual circumstances of that case is similar to the instant case.

Court relies on various SC judgements discussing excercise of powers under section 438 of CrPC

Petitioner counsel relied upon judgement in Arunesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, Court notes.

Main contention of Resp 3 is that the conduct of petitioner has to be looked into, Court notes.

There was no apprehension of arrest and she did not mention any date in understanding. Therefore, she is not entitled for bail, the respondent urged: Court.

Respondent also states that the petitioner has approached the Court thinking that it is "shopping mall", Court.

Court: It has to be noted that Transit bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

Court comes to a conclusion of that it CAN consider an application made under section 438.

Court looks into the circumstances under which the petitioner approached the HC.

Undertaking*

Bench: There is no dispute on the fact that in the complaint, there is no mention of the Petitioner as well as the Company.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had approached Mumbai police on November 17 and 18. Her statements were taken from 11:30 to 5:30, Bench.

Bench notes that n letter dated Nov 19 to Mumbai police, Petitioner had informed that she would going to Bangalore as her father was not keeping well. She also informed that she would be back in a few days and that she would co-operate with investigation.

Bench: In another letter dated Nov 20, she informed that she would be back by Nov 24 and appear before the police, once she was back.

When asked what made the police to rush to Bangalore, Resp 3 had no answer: Court

Bench: There is a reasonable apprehension of arrest as contented by the petitioner.

Mumbai police has also not given any explanation. Except bring on record statement record by it dated Nov 17/18.

Police has not explained by she was called to Bannerghatta Police Station, Court.

There is not "answer in the mouth of the police" of these questions: Court.

This contention cannot be accepted.

Court also declines to accept the contention raised by the Resp 3 that WP before Bombay HC.

Court: Petitioner has made out ground to avail transit bail for a limited period, as she is apprehending arrest

Breaking: Transit Bail allowed to Priya Mukharjee, petition allowed.

@Republic_Bharat
@republic

Transit bail allowed for 20 days to Priya Mukharjee. She is directed to the approach the appropriate Court within the said period: Bench.

Bench: Police is misusing SC judgement in Arnesh Kumar.

"They are not applying their mind.... Whether a cognizable offence is made...?"

Police should satisfy the Court on why they are arresting a person.

ORDER: Petition is allowed.

In the event of arrest of petitioner, she may be enlarged by taking a bond of Rs 2 lakh and two sureties.

Transit bail is in existence for period of 20 days.

Petitioner to approach appropriate forum for seeking relief within the said period.

Bench: Court has come to the rescue of a person........

Dictation of order ends.

Bench: Counsel files memo to receive operative portion of memo.

Registry directed to deliver the operative portion, Bench.

[BREAKING] Karnataka High Court grants transit bail to Republic TV COO, Priya Mukharjee

@republic @DGPMaharashtra

#TRPSCAM #ArnabGoswami #KarnatakaHighCourt

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…