Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navin Dhamija And Others vs B.S. Sandhu on 20 January, 2023
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -1-
215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
COCP-487-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : January 17, 2023
Pronounced on : January 20, 2023
Navin Dhamija and others
.....Petitioners
Vs.
B.S. Sandhu and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Longia, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
The petitioners alleges the violation of the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'D.K. Basu Vs. State of West
Bengal' in writ petition (Crl.) No.592 of 1987 and in 'Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar' in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are journalists working for the newspapers and FIR
No.241 dated 16.4.2018 under Sections 354-D, 499 IPC read
with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act was
registered in Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad on a complaint
given by one 'A' (name not disclosed) alleging that by publishing a
1 of 7
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -2-
news item dated 15.4.2018, in their respective news portals, the
petitioners have committed the offence.
It is stated that on 18.4.2018 Additional Sessions
Judge, Faridabad granted the stay of arrest and Section 67A of
the IT Act was added later on and thereafter, the Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 19.4.2018 dismissed the
anticipatory bail application. It is also stated that certain
communications were made to the higher police officials
regarding false implication of the petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
petitioners came to Chandigarh on 2.5.2018 for the purpose of
filing anticipatory bail application, which was listed on 4.5.2018,
and on 3.5.2018, they started their journey by car to district Una
in Himachal Pradesh and when they were having food at a
Dhaba, respondents No.5 and 6, who are the police officials of
Police Station, Crime Branch, Sector 30, Faridabad, along with
other police officials came there, threatened and took them to
Faridabad. It is alleged that the detention of the petitioners is in
violation of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as no notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
was served and the grounds of arrest were not made available to
the petitioners, which resulted into two days police remand
granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.
2 of 7
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -3-
Separate replies by way of affidavits of the Director
General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula, Commissioner of Police,
Faridabad, Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau,
Gurugram and Incharge, Cyber Cell, Sector 30, Faridabad are on
record.
As per the affidavit of the Director General of Police,
Panchkula, on receiving the complaint of the petitioners, the
matter was referred to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad for
an enquiry.
In the affidavit of the Commissioner of Police,
Faridabad it is stated that the FIR was registered on the
complaint given by a lady in which the following objectionable
pictures and comments posted by the petitioners were found:-
(i) That the petitioner No.1 posted the
objectionable pictures/cartoons along with
comments on the portal of
'haryanabhaskar.com' that "VIDHAYAK
DWARA RANGRALIYAN MANANE KA
MAMLA CHARCHA ME - VIDHAYAK BOLE
MAIN JITNA SARIF UTNA HI BADMASH."
(ii) That the petitioner No.2 posted cartoon on
'citymailsnews.com' with the comment that
"KHASI CHARCHAON ME HAI VIDHAYAK
VA MAHILA NETRI KI PREM LILA."
(iii) That the petitioner No.3 posted cartoon
along with objectionable comments on
3 of 7
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -4-
'metroplus.online' that "BJP SAMARTHIT
VIDHAYAK VA HARE BHARE KSHETRA
KEE MAHILA NETRI KI RANGRALIYO NE
MACHAYA TOOFAN."
It is stated that thereafter, the investigation was
carried out and petitioners were arrested in accordance with law
and report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed.
In the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, State
Vigilance Bureau, Gurugram again, the allegations of the FIR
were reproduced and the details are given.
In the affidavit of the Incharge, Cyber Crime, Sector
30, Faridabad, the complete details of the investigation are given.
It is stated that upon registration of the FIR, the petitioners filed
the anticipatory bail, in which interim stay was granted on
18.4.2018, however, on 19.4.2018, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Faridabad dismissed the application with the following
observations :-
"In view of above discussion since the
applicants/accused do not dispute uploading
the posts regarding rumors of
alleged relationship between complainant and
one MLA on 'haryanabhaskar.com',
'citymail.com' and 'metroplusonline.com', viz.
the social media and there are ingredients
regarding commission of offence under Section
67-A of the IT Act in the occurrence in this case
in view of request of prosecution regarding
4 of 7
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -5-
custodial interrogation of applicants/accused,
this Court do not deem it appropriate to grant
the concession of pre-arrest bail to the
applicants/accused. Hence, their pre-arrest bail
application is, hereby, rejected. File be
consigned to the record room after due
compliance."
It is further stated that during investigation, statement
of the witness was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that
of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad on 24.4.2018.
The anticipatory bail application of one accused Shiv
Kumar was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridabad.
It is further stated that all the three petitioners then
filed CRM-M-17157 of 2018 which came up for hearing on
26.4.2018 and the following order was passed :-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
time to get the case law.
Adjourned to 4.5.2018."
It is submitted that in the intervening period, the
police party received a secret information that accused Shiv
Kumar was present in a Dharamshala at Panchkula. He was
given a notice in writing to come present at Crime Branch, Sector
30, Faridabad. Thereafter, Shiv Kumar informed the police about
5 of 7
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -6-
the petitioners who had gone to Una in Himachal Pradesh and on
receiving the information, the police party went to Una, Himachal
Pradesh and they were informed in writing to come present at
Crime Branch, Sector 30, Faridabad and the petitioners travelled
in their own car and reached the office of Crime Branch, Sector
30, Faridabad on 4.5.2018 and were interrogated. However,
they were not co-operating and, therefore, in order to recover the
mobile phones and the devices used by them in commission of
crime, they were arrested on 4.5.2018.
The information was given to their relatives on their
respective mobile phones as stated in the arrest memo of the
petitioners. Thereafter, medical examination of all the three
accused was got conducted from the B.K. Hospital, Faridabad
and they were produced on the same day before the Illaqua
Magistrate, where two days police remand was granted for
effecting the recovery of mobile phones. It is further stated that
on the adjourned date, i.e. 4.5.2018, the aforesaid CRM-M-17157
of 2018 was rendered infructuous.
The details of the recovery effected from the
petitioners, i.e mobile phones, computer monitors, CPU etc. is
also detailed in the affidavit. It is also stated that one more
accused, namely, Chander Shekhar Rawat also filed an
application for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Faridabad which was dismissed and even his CRM-M-
6 of 7
COCP-487-2019 (O&M) -7-
26471-2018 was also dismissed by this Court on 21.6.2018
holding that the police has absolute right to investigate a
cognizable offence by taking a person in custody, if the police
suspect that a person is involved in a cognizable offence and
arrest is required for recovery and proper investigation.
It is further stated that on completion of investigation,
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial
Court and, thereafter, the charges were framed and the
petitioners are facing the trial.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial is
concluded and the petitioners stand acquitted.
Be whatsoever, from the affidavits of the respondent-
police officials, the order of the Courts, on the face of it, no
violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is made
out.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.
( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
January 20, 2023 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
7 of 7
