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

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.

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

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.

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:

"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

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