Orissa High Court
Animesh Chakraborty vs State Of Odisha on 6 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.1496 of 2023
Animesh Chakraborty .... Petitioner
Mr. R. Agarwal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
06.03.2023
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R Case No.2579 of 2022
pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C-1, Puri, arising out of
Singhadwar P.S Case No.150 of 2022, for commission of offence
under Sections 468/420/511 IPC and Section 10(2) of the Aircraft
Act, 1934 and Section 30(A)4)(C) of Shri Jagannath Temple Act,
1954.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri by
order dated 02.02.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present
BLAPL has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is
a Youtuber, freelance photographer and a blogger having a channel
named as UNNIFIED. He is a registered drone operator and visits
places of tourist interest and monuments and uploads its pictures
and details on his Youtube channel.
5. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is in custody since
19.01.2023 on the allegation of flying drone over the temple of
Lord Jagannath, Puri and uploading the video footage in his
Youtube channel.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner with vehemence submits
that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is accepted at its
face value, no case is made out against the Petitioner since the
Petitioner had used a "Nano Drone" as such no licence is required
for operating the same; yet he has obtained the licence for the same.
7. It is his further submission that he had not flown the drone
in the earmarked red zone and it is the specific case of the Petitioner
that such a red zone has not been notified either by the DGCA or by
the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
8. It is further submitted that soon after being cognizant of
outraging sentiment of people across the board, he not only deleted
the videos but also tendered public apology. It is also stated that he
assured the cooperation as per the notice issued under Section 41-A
Cr.P.C. As his house was raided on 17.12.2022, he could not muster
courage to respond such notice. After rejection of his anticipatory
bail application by this Court by order dated 5.1.2023 in ABLAPL
No.16622 of 2022, as he is in custody since 19.01.2023 as noted
and since has no criminal proclivity, he may be released on bail.
9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer during
currency of investigation.
10. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, it would be apposite to quote the relevant provision of
the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, which
are allegedly violated.
AIRCRAFT ACT, 1934
"10. Penalty for act in contravention of rule made under this
Act -
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In making any other rule under section 5 or in
maKing any rule under 5 [section 4, section 7], section 8,
section 8A or section 8B, the Central Government may direct
that a breach of it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
period which may extend to [two years, or with fine which may
extend to ten lakh rupees], or with both."
SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE ACT, 1954
"30-A, Offences :
xxx xxx xxx
(4) WHOEVER :-
xxx xxx xxx
(c) takes inside the premises of the Temple any article
knowing that the taking of such article is prohibited under any
law or custom or by any declaration made and published in the
prescribed manner by the Committee with due regard to the
prevailing custodm, public health, morality or the religious
sentiments of the public; shall on conviction be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to two months or with fine
which may extend to [one thousand rupees] or with both."
11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that there is no violation of either Aircraft Act, 1934 or
Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, extracted above and the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
12. It is stated that the period of punishment under the Aircraft
Act, 1934 is two years and under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act,
1954 is two months. Since the Petitioner is in custody since
19.01.2023 and the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC are
triable by Magistrate and punishment prescribed is seven years,
further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is punitive.
13. At this stage in tune with the settled principles, this Court
refrains itself from expressing any opinion regarding the contention
of the Petitioner that no offence ex facie is made out. The same has
to be considered at the appropriate stage.
14. This Court perused the materials. There is no iota of doubt
that by his conduct the Petitioner has hurt the religious sentiment of
the people at large. All the rituals of Lord Jagannath including
"changing flag of Shree Mandir" which the Petitioner allegedly
recorded through "Drone" have a revered place in the psyche of
millions of faithful. Yet, considering the nature of allegation,
substantial progress in investigation, period of pre-trial detention
and in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
another, reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773, this Court directs the
Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the
learned court in seisin over the matter to ensure his presence during
trial.
15. To allay the legitimate apprehension of Mr. Pradhan,
learned Addl. Standing Counsel that it would be difficult to secure
the attendance of the Petitioner during the course of ongoing
investigation since he ordinarily does not reside within the
territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin, additionally it
is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer once every month on such date and time to be fixed by the
learned Court in seisin till submission of final form. Certification of
such appearance shall be submitted before the learned Court in
seisin.
16. It shall be open to the Investigating Agency to seek
variance of this order in the event the Petitioner does not extend the
desired cooperation.
17. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
18. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
