Kerala High Court
T.N. Suraj vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2022
WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 1 / 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Tuesday, the 19th day of April 2022 / 29th Chaithra, 1944
WP(CRL.) NO. 346 OF 2022(S)
PETITIONER:
T.N. SURAJ, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LATE THANKAPPAN NAIR,
APARTMENT NO. 9E, TOWER 1, DD PLATINUM, KATHRIKKADAVU,
ERNAKULAM -682 017.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
010.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, ERNAKULAM- 683 104.
5. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.297/2017 OF NEDUMBASSERY
POLICE STATION HAVING OFFICE AT POLICE CLUB, ALUVA- 683 101.
6. INDO-ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, MR.M.V.NIKESH KUMR, REPORTER STUDIO COMPLEX, HMT COLONY,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503.
Writ petition (criminal) praying inter alia that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(Crl.) the
High Court be pleased to:
(i) issue an order prohibiting publication/broadcast telecast of
matters relating to Crime No.6/2022 of Crime Branch Police Station and
S.C. No.118/2018 of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI) III,
Ernakulam except the orders passed by courts of law till the disposal of
the Writ Petition (Criminal); and
(ii) direct the 6th respondent to produce the contents of the entire
telecast from 25/12/2021 till date in 'Reporter TV' channel concerning the
matter relating to Crime No.6/2022 of Crime Branch Police Station and S.C.
No.118/2018 of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI) III,
Ernakulam and the entire publication about the matter made during the said
period in their online portal 'Reporter' before this Honourable Court
forthwith.
P.T.O.
WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 2 / 23
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(Crl.) and upon hearing the arguments
of SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE) along with M/S. NISHA GEORGE,
ARUN CHANDRAN, J.VISHNU & VISHNU B.KURUP, Advocates for the petitioner,
SRI.GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS &
SENIOR ADVOCATE for R1 to R5, the court passed the following:
P.T.O.
WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 3 / 23
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.J.
..........................................
W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022
.........................................
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2022
ORDER
Admit.
2. Sr. Advocate and Additional Director General of Prosecutions Sri. Gracious Kuriakose takes notice for respondents 1 to 5. Notice by Special Messenger to the 6th respondent.
3. The petitioner is arrayed as the third accused in Crime No. of 2022 of Crime Branch Police Station pursuant to Ext. P1 FIR dated 9- 1-2022 alleging commission of offences under Sections 116, 118, 120 B and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. A report was filed on 4-1-2022 by the Investigating Officer changing S.120 B to Section 120 B (1) for adding offence under Section 302 of IPC.
4. The 5th respondent herein, the de facto complainant, Mr. Baiju Paulose, Dy.S.P., Crime Branch also happens to be one of the Investigating Officers in Crime No. 297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station registered on 18-2-20217. In the said case, initially there were only 7 accused but pursuant to the final report dated 22-11-2017, Mr.Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner and a film actor was also arrayed as the 8th accused. WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 4 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -2-
5. The allegation in Ext. P1 FIR is due to the enmity of the accused in Crime No. 297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, arising from the arrest and implication of Sri. Dileep in the said Crime, the accused in Ext. P1 FIR conspired, instigated and abetted to do away with the fifth respondent and other officers in the investigation team of Crime No. 297/2017. It was alleged that this conspiracy was committed on 15-2-2017 and it was seen and heard by one Mr. Balachandrakumar. It is further submitted that petitioner along with his brothers-in-law Mr. Dileep and Anoop had filed applications seeking anticipatory bail from this Court and by a common order dated 29-01-2022 in Bail Application Nos. 248/2022, 288/2022 and 300/2022, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners vide Ext. P4 order holding prima facie that the offences alleged were not attracted. Reference was also made to certain comments made in the media about the manner in which this Court considered the bail applications. The media was reminded that its right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be a license to abuse the justice delivery system by persons who have little or no knowledge of the fundamental legal principles. The learned Senior counsel submits that notwithstanding the said observations in Ext. P4, the 6th respondent WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 5 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -3- continued interfering and reporting about the investigation worsening the situation. It is further alleged that respondents 3 to 5 are leaking out materials allegedly collected during investigation and including those from the in camera trial in S.C. 118/2018 and the same is forming the basis for the false and fabricated stories in the media. Though the judicial First Class Court, Angamally had passed an order dated 17-1-2018, Ext. P5 including strictures against the 5 th respondent herein and had pointed out that the publications had its impact on the administration of justice, such publications in the media continued. It is further alleged that the trial in S.C. 118/2018 conducted in camera and inspite of the prohibition under Section 327 (3) of the Cr.P.C., publications in violation thereof are being made and Sessions Court had passed Ext. P6 order specifically prohibits publishing of proceedings except those permitted under the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and Another v. Union of India [(2019) 2 SCC 703].
6. The 6th respondent using his online news portal named Reporter and their Television Channel named Reporter TV, has been telecasting items regarding the cases in question from 25-12-2021 onwards fabricating more and more allegations against Mr. Dileep and WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 6 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -4- the petitioner about matters which are sub judice in the ongoing trial and the pending investigation. It is alleged that Mr. M.V. Nikesh Kumar, is the Chief Executive Officer of the 6 th respondent and that he was cited as a prosecution witness in the pending trial. It is further alleged that inspite of Mr. Dileep filing OP (Crl) No. 23/2022 before this Court seeking implementation of Ext. P6 order in which Ext. P7 order was passed by this Court, no effective investigation is being carried out though cases have been registered against the CEO of the 6th respondent. Alleging that the 6 th respondent is resorting to sensationalism/publication/broadcast of fabricated allegations against the accused persons and their associates which is evident from Exts. P8 to P11 and Ext. P12 reports by the other medias. Exts. P8, P8 (a), P8(b) and P8(c) suggested that one Mr. Sarath, a friend of the petitioner's family is the 6th accused in the case and several news items implicating the said person were published. As a matter of fact, the application filed by Sri. Sarath for anticipatory bail was closed as the prosecution conceded that there was no material for implicating him. The 6th respondent had notwithstanding the above factual position made several nefarious attacks on Sarath. Exts. P9, P9(a) to (c) are also on same lines. The petitioner further states that from the last week of February 2022 onwards, the media reports WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 7 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -5- alleged destruction of data in the mobile phones of Sri. Dileep and it was one Mr. Saisankar who allegedly did this. Several reports have been published spreading stories about the destruction of data by Mr. Dileep when the prosecution has not moved this Court which granted bail pointing out the same if it were actually true. Similar reports about the surrender of Mr. Saishankar before the 3 rd respondent who in turn made allegations about the lawyers appearing for Sri. Dileep and the petitioner herein as could be seen from Exts. P10 (a), (b), (c) and P10(d) respectively. It was also reported that the mobile phone of the petitioner herein was seized and that portions of audio recordings from it were leaked out to the media. Audio recording allegedly of the conversations between the petitioner and the above mentioned Sarath and between the petitioner and his family members etc. were leaked out and the copies of the reports published in the Reporter Online Portal regarding the audio clippings are marked as Exts. P11(a) to (e). Other medias also published the similar items in their print media on 9-4-2022 and 10-4-2022 and the same is marked as Ext. P12(a) and (b).
7. Apart from pleading about the reports as aforesaid in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the writ petition, it is stated that Crl.M.C. WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 8 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -6- 1106/2022 filed by Mr. Dileep before this Court to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 6 of 2022 and the hearing of which concluded on 31-3-2022 and the judgment reserved. It is at that stage when the judgment is awaited, respondents 3 to 5 are indulging in the act of leaking out the alleged materials collected during investigation.
8. There is a specific allegation that respondents 3 to 5 are instrumental in leaking out the reports of the alleged investigation which led to the parallel trial by media. It is on this basis, the above Writ Petition is filed stating that the petitioner is facing trial by media engineered and orchestrated by respondents 3 to 5 and therefore, orders should be passed to stop such publications/broadcast till the final report is filed in Ext. P1 crime. The publications, broadcast, reports, interviews, channel discussions, talk shows are about the evidence claimed to have been unearthed during the investigation in Crime No. 6/2022of Crime Branch Police Station which is connected to S.C. No. 118 of 2018 which is pending. It is also pointed out that petitioner herein was examined by the prosecution as their witness (PW 132 in S.C. No. 118/2018 of Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPEW/CBI) III, Ernakulam) and that leaking out of material relating to WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 9 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -7- him prejudices the trial as well as the investigation in Crime No. 6 of 2022.
9. The prayers of the Writ Petition are for postponement of the publication/telecast as aforesaid and also for a writ of mandamus to respondents to respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a fair and effective enquiry into the leaking of the material collected during the investigation of Crime No. 6/2022 and SC No. 118/2018 of Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE) /CBI, III, Ernakulam. The first among the interim reliefs sought is to prohibit publication/broadcast of matters relating to the above said crime and the Sessions Case except the orders passed by the courts of law till the disposal of the Writ Petition and also to direct the 6 th respondent to produce the contents of the entire telecast from 25-12-2021 till date in Report TV Channel and their Portal concerning the matter relating to Crime No. 6/2022 of Crime Branch Police Station as well as S.C. No. 118/2018 of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE) /CBI, III,Ernakulam.
10. Heard Sr. Advocate Sri., George Poonthottam, assisted by Advocate Sri. Arun Chandran and Sr.Advocate Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, the Additional Director General of Prosecution on behalf of WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 10 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -8- respondents 1 to 5.
11. The learned Senior Counsel reiterating the contentions raised in the Writ Petition points out that the contents of Exts. P8 to P11 clearly prove that there is a trial by media with respect to the aforesaid crime and the Sessions Case. He also points out that these reports would clearly show that there has been selective leaking of information allegedly gathered during the investigation by respondents 3 to 5. It is further argued that inspite of the orders and the orders of the Magistrate Court in Ext. P5 and the orders of the Sessions Court in Ext. P6 concerning the publication of the details of the court, the 6th respondent as well as the other media are reporting matters as explained in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the writ petition. They clearly interfere with the administration of justice besides causing prejudice to the writ petitioner. Reports made against the petitioner and his close relatives involved in the crime and in the Sessions Case are damaging their reputation. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a free trial is hampered by the actions of the 6 th respondent with the help given by respondents 3 to 5. He, therefore, prays for the interim orders sought for. To support the contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision reported in Sahara India Real WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 11 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -9- Estate Corporation Limited and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 603].
12. Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Advocate and Additional Director General of Prosecution on the other hand contends that the petitioner has no locus to file the Writ Petition as he is not an accused in the Sessions Case mentioned above and that he is an accused only in the crime registered subsequently which is only at the investigation stage, there is no question of passing any interim order as sought for, since the crime in which the petitioner is the accused is not pending trial. He also submits that the media would have got the materials from the documents produced before this Court in the various proceedings including in the applications of bail and thus reporting of the same cannot be said to be illegal. He further argues that the second relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted as no such demand in that line has been made to the respondents before filing the writ petition and since that relief itself cannot be granted, there cannot be any interim order granted on same lines. The learned Senior counsel submits that on the basis of the ratio laid down in Sahara India (supra) it is premature on the part of the petitioner to claim any relief in the Writ Petition. He also WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 12 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -10- argues that the publication of which the petitioner seeks to prevent must be seen by the court for before passing any orders to restrain them. Sri. Grashious also submitted that respondents 1 to 5 had noting to do with the report in Ext. P8 to P12 and thus prayed for rejecting the request for interim order.
13. I have considered the arguments raised on either side for the purpose of considering the question of grant of the first interim relief sought in the writ petition namely:
"(i) Issue an order prohibiting publication/braodcast telecast of matters relating to Crime No. 6 / 2022 of Crime Branch Police Station and SC 118/2018 of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI) III, Ernakulam except the Orders passed by courts of laws till the disposal of the Writ Petition (Criminal)".
14. Several of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights comes into play while considering a prayer for interim relief of the nature sought. The right of the public to know the details of the criminal case through the media, the media's right to freedom of speech and expression, the right of the victim to bring out the truth WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 13 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -11- through a fair trial, presumption of innocence which the accused or the suspect has until proved guilty, the right to reputation, privacy which are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India available to the parties and above all the indefeasible right for a due administration of justice in accordance with the law.
15. The media interest or media debate, are all permitted in a democracy government by rule of law subject to one inviolable exception namely that the media cannot during the course of trial or investigation suggest/publish/telecast that A or B is guilty or that C or D is untrustworthy or an honest witness. This is plainly impermissible as the said suggestions of guilt of innocence or credit worthiness of witness etc. are beyond the permissible rights of the media. Media cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the courts which alone has the constitutional authority to decide the guilt/innocence of a person or decide on the content, quality or the width of any right available to any citizen/accused/suspect. The rule of law, a basic feature of our Constitution grants every accused a right to ensure that he is tried in accordance with the procedure laid down by the criminal laws on the basis of the evidence let in the trial and without the court trying the case being influenced by a parallel trial by media WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 14 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -12- or by commits and discussions by the media in regard to matters which are sub judice.
16. Half truths and misinformation cannot be the basis of publications or telecast. The media cannot be given the right to speculate on the outcome of the on going investigations or the court proceedings or criminal trials. Publication of leaks from the investigation agencies and to level allegations against individuals based on such leaks are not protected by the freedom of press under Article 19 (a) of the Constitution and it cannot be a defense that what was telecast was the allegation based on the prima facie findings of an investigating agency or worse on the basis of suspicions of Investigating agency. As far as criminal trial is concerned, any reporting beyond the factual statement of what has transpired in a court room can be curbed in a given case. Though the media performs the vital public function of being the communicator and the link between the courts of law and the people, its rights are also regulated and the fundamental right of speech and expression cannot be allowed to trample upon the rights available to the other citizens/accused/suspect.
WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 15 / 23W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -13-
17 Reports/telecast having the effect of prejudicing mankind against the parties and the court before the case is heard clearly interferes with the course of justice. A larger negative impact to a trial by media, a more subtle one which often goes unnoticed also needs a mention. In a trial by media which apart from adversely affecting the rights of an accused for a fair trial has immense power to influence public opinion. A perception is created for or against the accused in the mind of the laymen. So much so, that when a Judge passes a verdict which may be totally against the layman's perception, it causes him to distrust the integrity of the very legal system. The time tested system of arriving at the conclusion of guilt on the basis of legal evidence need not always be a concept which is familiar to a person untrained in law. Such persons are more comfortable with the version that the media has given him. This loss of faith in justice delivery system is aggravated when the judge, not the judgment itself is subjected to media criticism. In such cases, trial by media results in denigration of the justice delivery system which without doubt, is the very foundation of the rule of law in any democratic set up.
18. As stated above, there are specific allegations made WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 16 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -14- against respondents 3 to 5 that reports of the investigation has been leaked out to the 6th respondent and to the other media who published the same.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has commented on such leaks in the decision reported in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [(2010) 1 SCC 457] and the same is profitably extracted hereunder:
13. But the appellant's grievance in regard to media being informed about the incident even before completion of investigation, is justified. There is a growing tendency among investigating officers (either police or other departments) to inform the media, even before the completion of investigation, that they have caught a criminal or an offender. Such crude attempts to claim credit for imaginary investigational breakthroughs should be curbed. Even where a suspect surrenders or a person required for questioning voluntarily appears, it is not uncommon for the Investigating Officers to represent to the media that the person was arrested with much effort after considerable investigation or a chase. Similarly, when someone voluntarily declares the money he is carrying, media is informed that huge cash which was not declared was discovered by their vigilant investigations and thorough checking. Premature disclosures or `leakage' to the media in a pending investigation will not only jeopardise and impede further investigation, but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape from law. Be that as it may.
20. As pointed out in Murukeshan v. State of Kerala and Others [2011 (1) KHC 97], once a case involving the commission of a WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 17 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -15- cognizable offence has been registered and the FIR forwarded to the Magistrate, the matter is subjudice and no police officer has the right to leak out any information regarding the outcome of the investigation until the final report is filed before this Court. The formation of opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for trial is that of the police officer making the investigation and that final step in the investigation is to be taken by the police and by no other authority.
21. Even the accused who is arrested during investigation and produced before a Magistrate under Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C. Is entitled only to get a copy of the remand report as it is on its basis his custody is sought. The Code only directs the investigating Officer to transmit to the Magistrate a copy of the entries in the case diary and when even the accused is not entitled to get the copy of any of the documents except remand report at that stage, it is difficult to comprehend as to how any other person/citizen/media can get copies of the details which even the accused is not entitled. Still worse will be the case of publication/telecast of the alleged materials referred above, which can only be on the basis of surmises/suspicion. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency is not WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 18 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -16- allowed to divulge the details of investigation of any crime to the public at large on three counts namely; principle, authority and propriety.
22. The Norms of Journalist Conduct published by Press Council of India, 2019 Edition also recognises that in a conflict between fair trial and freedom of speech fair trial has to necessarily prevail. It also makes it clear :
The media reports should not induce the general public to believe in the complicity of the person indicted as such kind of action brings undue pressure on the course of fair investigation by the police.
It is not always advisable to vigorously report crime related issues on a day to day basis nor to comment on supposed evidence of the crime without ascertaining the factual matrix Victim, witnesses, suspects and accused should not be given excessive publicity as it is amount to invasion of their privacy rights.WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 19 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -17-
The media is not expected to conduct its own parallel trial or foretell the decision putting undue pressure on the judge, the jury or the witnesses or prejudice a party to the proceedings."
The members of the electronic media should also be bound by the spirit of the above guidelines, which I feel is precise and reckoning the various rights mentioned above.
23. The contention of the learned Addl. Director General of Prosecution Sri. Grashious Kuriakose is that the petitioner has no locus to approach this Court cannot be accepted as there are specific references in the reports about the petitioner.
24. The 6 th respondent herein who is alleged to have telecast items, the contents of which are evidenced by Exts. P8 to P11 and pleaded from paragraph Nos. 10 to 16 in the Writ Petition are if true l be nothing but gross interference in the due administration of justice. It further shows the propensity of the 6 th respondent to publish/telecast such items despite the orders passed on earlier WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 20 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -18- occasions by the court trying the Sessions Case and of this Court's evidenced by Exts. P5, P6 and P7. The petitioners apprehension that the 6th respondent will indulge in similar telecasts in future has sound basis. As stated above, since these reports interferes/obstructs the due course of justice going by the principles culled out from the various decisions of the Apex Court, the sixth respondent is to be prevented from telecasting/publishing the reports in the nature of contents revealed in Exts. P8 to P11 reports and P12. The propensity of the 6th respondent is clear and therefore, a reasonable inference about its continuance can be drawn. Considering the nature of the contents of the publication/telecast in Exts. P8 to P11 and that those materials had not been established in any legal proceedings, there cannot be any justification for permitting such publications. Thus viewed, I have no hesitation to hold that the instant case warrants the extreme step of passing directions against the 6 th respondent to prevent such publications in future.
25. Hence I direct the 6 th respondent not to publish/broadcast/telecast any item concerning or relating to the petitioner herein while reporting about Crime No. 6 of 2022 of Crime Branch Police Station and SC No. 118 of 2018 of Additional Special WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 21 / 23 W.P. (Crl.) No. 346 of 2022 -19- Sessions Court (SPE/CBI) III, Ernakulam), except the order of the Court for a period of three weeks from today.
26. In view of the specific allegations made against respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition, there will be a direction to the said respondents to file counter affidavits dealing with the said allegations.
The 2 nd respondent, State Police Chief is also directed to ensure that no information regarding the investigation of Crime No. 6 of 2022 of Crime Branch Police Station shall be leaked out to any one by any of the Investigating Officers .
Post on 29.04.2022.
Sd/-Mohammed Nias. C.P., Judge.
Ani/16/4/
/true copy/
19-04-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 22 / 23
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 346/2022
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 6/2022 OF CRIME BRANCH
POLICE STATION DATED 09.01.2022.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN B.A.
NO. 248/2022, 288/2022, AND 300/2022 DATED 07.02.2022. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ANGAMALY IN CMP. NO. 985/2017 DATED 17.01.2018.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT (SPE/CBI) III, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.P. NO. 661/2020 DATED 19.03.2020.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN O.P. (CRL) NO. 23/2022 DATED 18.01.2022.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE NEWS PORTAL DATED 17.01.2022.
Exhibit P8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE NEWS PORTAL DATED 17.01.2022.
Exhibit P8(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE NEWS PORTAL DATED 19.01.2022.
Exhibit P8(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE NEWS PORTAL DATED 21.01.2022.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 23.03.2022.
Exhibit P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 29.03.2022.
Exhibit P9(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 30.03.2022.
Exhibit P9(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 30.03.2022.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 08.04.2022.
Exhibit P10(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 08.04.2022.
Exhibit P10(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 08.04.2022.
Exhibit P10(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 08.04.2022.
Exhibit P10(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 09.04.2022.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 07.04.2022.
Exhibit P11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 08.04.2022.
Exhibit P11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 08.04.2022.
Exhibit P11(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 09.04.2022.
Exhibit P11(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 09.04.2022.
Exhibit P11(e) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN REPORTER ONLINE PORTAL DATED 09.04.2022.
WP(Crl.) No.346/2022 23 / 23Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 09.04.2022.
Exhibit P12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBOOMI DAILY DATED 09.04.2022.
Exhibit P12(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 10.04.2022.