A Gurugram court rejected anticipatory bail plea moved by journalist Chitra Tripathi in a POCSO case. The senior journalist is facing an arrest warrant for publishing a news allegedly related to Asaram Bapu sexual assault case. The court issued an arrest warrant against the journalist earlier this month after it rejected her bail plea and she failed to appear in court in person. Tripathi is facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for allegedly airing news about a 10-year-old girl in connection with the Asaram Bapu case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
HARYANA: A court in Gurugram has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of senior journalist Chitra Tripathi in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case. The journalist is currently facing an arrest warrant for allegedly airing news related to the Asaram Bapu sexual assault case.
The arrest warrant against Tripathi was issued earlier this month after her initial bail plea was dismissed, and she failed to appear in person before the court. Tripathi is accused of airing sensitive news about a 10-year-old girl in connection with the high-profile case against godman Asaram Bapu.
The allegations involve broadcasting “morphed, edited, and obscene” videos of the minor and her family.
Charges Against Tripathi
The journalist has been charged under multiple sections of the law, including:
- Sections 120B, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy and forgery.
- Sections 67B and 67 of the IT Act for publishing or transmitting sexually explicit content, particularly content abusive to children.
- Sections 23 and 13C of the POCSO Act for disclosing the identity of a child and obscene representation of a minor.
Court’s Observations on Anticipatory Bail Plea
While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the court observed that it was “not maintainable” since an arrest warrant had already been issued against Tripathi.
Additionally, the court emphasized that if the warrant is not executed by November 30, the police officer in charge would need to appear in person to explain the lapse.
Allegations of Disregard for Legal Proceedings
Tripathi and another accused, Suhail, had sought exemption from appearing in court. Tripathi cited her professional commitments, claiming she was in Nashik, Maharashtra, covering the Assembly elections and interviewing senior politicians such as NCP chief Ajit Pawar. Suhail, on the other hand, stated he was engaged in a political event in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The court, however, dismissed these arguments.
Judge Ashwani Kumar noted that the reasons presented in the bail application were repetitive and unsatisfactory. The court remarked:
“…feeling dissatisfied with the reasons assigned in the said application… and since the present application is based upon the same grounds, hence, it is required to be declined as this court had found those reasons to be unjustified.”
Tripathi had submitted flight tickets and photographs of her interviews with Maharashtra caretaker Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar to substantiate her claims. However, the court reasoned that given the stature of these politicians, the interviews would likely have been scheduled in advance.
The court asserted that if Tripathi had respected the judicial process, she could have filed for an exemption beforehand.
Court’s Stern Warning on Delayed Proceedings
In its warrant-issuing order, the court directed the station house officer (SHO) to execute the arrest warrant promptly. If the warrant remains unexecuted, the SHO has been instructed to appear in person before the court.
The complainant’s counsel argued that the accused had previously been granted exemptions on health grounds. However, the court noted that no valid reasons were provided to justify her absence on recent occasions.
The court sternly observed:
“…this Court does not find any justification for exempting her presence as it appears that she has been taking the process of the court quite lightly. The present case pertains to the year 2015 and if proceedings are not conducted expeditiously, it will not be practically feasible to dispose of the case at the earliest which has already become nine years old.”
As a result, the court cancelled Tripathi’s bail and forfeited her bail bonds and surety bonds, ensuring stricter measures moving forward to expedite the case.
Conclusion
The Gurugram court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s strong stance against delays in cases involving serious allegations.
The ruling also underscores the importance of respecting court processes, regardless of an individual’s professional commitments or stature.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Asaram Bapu
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
