Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Safikul Islam vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 October, 2024
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
04
&
05
jks 04.10.2024
WPA 21356 of 2024
Sk. Safikul Islam
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
WPA 21358 of 2024
Sk. Safikil Islam
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee
Mr. Pintu Karan
Mr. Akash Deep Mukherjee
Mr. Badrul Karim
Mr. Sabab Uddin Laskar
Ms. Sayani Manna
... ... for the petitioner
Mr. Suman Sengupta
Mr. Dwaipayan Basu Mallick
... ...for the State in WPA 21356 of 2024
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, SSC
Mr. Akash Dutta
... ...for the State in WPA 21358 of 2024
1. The present order arises out of two connected writ
petitions, being WPA 21365 of 2024 and WPA 21358 of
2024, both filed by the petitioner, Mr. Sk. Safikul Islam, a
journalist by profession and the proprietor of a YouTube
channel named Arambagh TV. Both the writ petitions
address grievances involving false allegations against the
petitioner, police harassment and actions aimed at
restricting the petitioner's journalistic freedom, including
freezing his bank account and registering false First
Information Reports (FIRs). Given the interconnected
2
facts and issues in both matters, this Court proceeds to
dispose of both writ petitions through this common order.
2. In WPA 21365 of 2024, the petitioner, Mr. Sk.
Safikul Islam, a journalist by profession, operates a
YouTube channel titled Arambagh TV, which boasts a
substantial subscriber base of 12.1 lakh and has
accumulated over 96 crore views since its inception on
19th August 2023. The petitioner submits that the
content uploaded on his channel consists of critical
analysis of contemporary news, often scrutinizing the
policies and actions of the State Government and its
functionaries. The petitioner contends that his
journalistic work, including fair criticism of the State, has
attracted unwarranted actions from the authorities.
3. Prior to establishing his YouTube channel, the
petitioner was employed by Calcutta Television Network
and also ran a local vernacular newspaper, Arambag
Barta. He submits that his professional background
evidences his longstanding commitment to investigative
journalism. The petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court
following the registration of an FIR by the Cyber Crime
Police Station, Hooghly Rural, under Case No. 06 of 2024,
dated 15th August 2024, invoking Sections 340(2),
353(1)(b)(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023. The petitioner contends that no notice or
intimation regarding the allegations was furnished at the
time of filing the writ application. It was only subsequent
to the initiation of the writ petition that the petitioner was
3
able to obtain a copy of the complaint. Upon a careful
perusal of the FIR, the petitioner submits that the
allegations are manifestly fabricated, with no basis in
fact, and are maliciously designed to stifle his journalistic
expression.
4. Further, the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of the writ petition, his bank account was
arbitrarily frozen by the concerned police authorities
without prior intimation or lawful justification. The
petitioner contends that his sole source of income is
derived from the YouTube channel, and the freezing of
the bank account has rendered him financially
incapacitated, depriving him of his livelihood. He asserts
that such action is not only in contravention of
procedural norms but also constitutes an infringement of
his fundamental right to carry on his profession.
5. In WPA 21358 of 2024, the petitioner challenges
another FIR registered at the Manicktala Police Station
under Case No. 117 of 2024, dated 2nd August 2024,
under Sections 196 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023, 2023. The petitioner submits that,
similar to the previous case, no documents or particulars
of the allegations were provided at the time of filing the
writ application. Upon obtaining a copy of the FIR, the
petitioner contends that the allegations are false,
frivolous, and aimed solely at curbing his freedom of
speech and expression.
4
6. The petitioner submits that there is a deliberate
and orchestrated attempt to malign his reputation and
suppress his journalistic activities. He contends that
multiple complaints have been lodged against him in
various police stations across the State, creating a
pattern of systematic harassment by the authorities. The
petitioner further argues that the police authorities have
acted beyond their jurisdiction and without due process
of law, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He
challenges the locus standi of the complainant, asserting
that the proceedings initiated under the FIR are barred
by Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Moreover, the petitioner submits
that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offense and
is thus liable to be quashed.
7. In both writ petitions, the petitioner prays for the
quashing of the FIRs on the grounds that the allegations
therein are baseless, mala fide, and constitute an abuse
of process. The petitioner also seeks the de-freezing of his
bank account, contending that the action taken by the
police authorities is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of
his constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
8. Learned Counsel appearing in WPA 21365 of 2024
for the State, represented by the Inspector-in-Charge of
Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural Police District
herein the respondent no. 12, submits that the case
against the petitioner, Mr. Safikul Islam, arises from a 5 complaint lodged on 15.08.2024 by one Subhasish Chakraborty, who alleged that the petitioner, through his YouTube channel Arambagh TV, disseminated a live video containing misleading and objectionable information about a recent incident at Radha Gobinda Kar Hospital in Kolkata. The complainant asserted that the content was false, edited, and aimed at creating public unrest.
9. Based on the said complaint, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural, initiated Case No. 06/2024 under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b)(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The investigating officer seized the relevant video clipping and conducted further inquiry by issuing two notices to the petitioner on 21.08.2024 and 26.08.2024 under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking his cooperation in the investigation. However, the petitioner did not comply with the notices and failed to appear before the authorities.
10. The State submits that the investigation revealed the video to be without any statutory disclaimer, which raised concerns about the petitioner's intent in broadcasting the unfounded information. As part of the investigation, the State issued a notice under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to YouTube, requesting information related to the IP address and other details connected to the video, but no response has been received yet from YouTube.
6
11. The State challenges the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the petitioner, by failing to cooperate with the investigation, has not exhausted the available remedies before approaching the Hon'ble Court. The State further submits that the freezing of the petitioner's bank account was a lawful action after being permitted by ACJM, Hooghly and was taken in furtherance of the investigation. However, should the petitioner comply with the directions of the investigating authorities and participate in the ongoing inquiry, the State is willing to consider defreezing the petitioner's bank account, subject to legal provisions.
12. Learned counsel appearing in WPA 21358 of 2024 for the State, represented by the Officer-in-Charge of Manicktala Police Station herein respondent no.11, submits that on 02.08.2024, a large gathering of 50-60 local supporters of East Bengal Club assembled outside Manicktala Police Station in protest against defamatory and provocative comments allegedly made by the petitioner on his YouTube channel, Arambagh TV. The video in question contained remarks that were seen as defamatory to the club and its supporters, inciting public outrage. The situation was brought under control only after assurances were given that appropriate legal action would be initiated against the petitioner.
13. Subsequently, based on a written complaint submitted by one Mritunjoy Paul, the police registered Manicktala PS Case No. 117 of 2024 under Sections 196 7 and 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The State proceeded with the investigation, seizing the video in question and issuing a notice under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to YouTube for relevant data, though no response has been received thus far.
14. A notice was also served upon the petitioner under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking his cooperation with the investigation. The notice was duly received by the petitioner's family members, but the petitioner failed to respond or appear before the police.
15. The State submits that the FIR was lodged based on cognizable offenses disclosed by the content of the video, and the police acted lawfully and within their jurisdiction. The State contends that the petitioner's claim of harassment is unfounded, and that the police have acted with due diligence and respect for the rule of law throughout the investigation.
16. Both the Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural Police District and the Manicktala Police Station submit that their actions are legally justified and that they are prepared to proceed in accordance with the directives issued by the Hon'ble Court. They affirm their compliance with all legal procedures and respect for the Court's authority.
8
17. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties at length.
18. On perusal of the documents brought before this Court and considering the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court reviewed the FIRs filed against the petitioner, Mr. Sk. Safikul Islam, and found that they were based on speculative and tenuous grounds. The Court observes that the State respondents have failed to provide any credible or substantive basis for the allegations, which appeared to be aimed at suppressing the petitioner's journalistic freedom. As such, the FIRs are deemed an abuse of the legal process. Furthermore, this Court holds that the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without following due process constituted a violation of his right to livelihood enshrined under the Constitution of India. The State had not provided any justifiable reason for continuing the freezing of the account, leading the Court to order its immediate defreezing. In granting interim relief, this Court underscored that actions by the State motivated by mala fide intent to stifle free speech and press freedom cannot be upheld. This Court emphasized that the allegations were not supported by any credible evidence and were intended to harass the petitioner and obstruct his journalistic activities.
19. As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Sanmay Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2019 SCC Online Cal 3941 that: 9
"11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment reported at (2017) 11 SCC 731 [Common Cause v. Union of India], which, in turn, relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. In the said judgments, the circumstances and principles regarding quashing of FIRs were discussed. Based on the said judgments, learned senior counsel submits that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR can be quashed.
12. The same principle applied to allegations in the FIR and other materials accompanying the FIR if those did not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the CrPC, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the CrPC.
13. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where the allegations in the FIR constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the CrPC.
14. The same principles for quashing of FIR also applies to situations where the allegations made in the FIR were so 10 absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the FIR ought to be quashed."
20. In the light of the above observations, this Court direct for a stay of all proceedings in connection with subject case Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural, under Case No. 06 of 2024, dated 15th August 2024, invoking Sections 340(2)/353(1)(b)(2)/352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 dated 15th August 2024 and Manicktala Police Station under Case No. 117 of 2024, dated 2nd August 2024, under Sections 196/353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, till 31st December, 2024 and also request the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with subject case Cyber Crime Police Station, Hooghly Rural, under Case No. 06 of 2024, dated 15th August 2024, invoking Sections 340(2)/ 353(1)(b)(2)/352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 dated 15th August 2024 and Manicktala Police Station under Case No. 117 of 2024, dated 2nd August 2024, under Sections 196/353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. A direction is also given upon the State for defreezing of the petitioner's bank account at 11 State Bank of India being A/C No. 35126107782, affirming the protection of journalistic freedom and the right to livelihood from unlawful interference. The petitioner shall be allowed to operate the bank account including withdrawal therefrom.
21. However, a detailed statement of the accounts of transaction, conducted by the petitioner in the said account, may be obtained by the Investigating Officer from the State Bank of India being A/C No. 35126107782.
22. As prayed for by the State respondent, leave is granted to the State to file affidavit-in-opposition within four (04) weeks, reply, if any, be filed within one (01) week thereafter.
23. Let this matter again appear in the list on 25th November, 2024 under the heading "To Be Mentioned".
24. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly obtained from the official website of this Court.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)