IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No OF 2019 (A Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF: Jagisha Arora sss Petitioner(s) /Applicant(s) VERSUS ‘The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. .... Respondent(s) /Defendant (s) AND WITH Cri. M. P. No. of 2019 An Application for Interim Relief AND WITH Cri. M. P. No. of 2019 ‘An Application for exemption from filing official translation of documents FOR PAPER-BOOK INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: SHADAN FARASAT») SYNOPSIS This is a writ petition by the wife of 26 year old Prashant Kanojia, a Hindi journalist who was unceremoniously taken away by men in civil dress on 8.6.2019 from his Delhi residence. It transpires that on 7.06.2019 the police officials of PS Hazratganj, Lucknow had lodged an FIR against him under Sections 500 IPC and 66 Information Technology Act, 2000 both of which bailable offences. Indeed the police can have no role whatsoever to lodge any FIR in a case under Section 500 IPC, which is criminal defamation, and requires under Section 199, CrPC that the person aggrieved alone may file a complaint before a Magistrate. Section 66 of the Information Act carries a maximum sentence of 3 years which is bailable in terms of section 77 B of the Act. The police was bound to release him in Delhi itself in terms of Section 436 CrPC which mandates release on bail in bailable cases but this statutory mandate was not even considered by the police. Possibly in order to obviate any release on bail, in an FIR carrying bailable offences only, the petitioner’s husband was not produced before any Magistrate to seek a transit remand. No arrest memo was prepared and neither the petitioner nor her husband was told of why he was being taken and who the “arresting officials” in civil dress were.I) c Much later, around 6 in the evening, a “press note” was released by Hazrat Ganj police claiming that the petitioner’s husband was held under Sections 500, 505 of IPC and Section 67 IT Act. Two sections, ie. Section 505 IPC and Section 67 IPC were obviously added because the FIR contained only bailable offences. However, neither of these sections are even prima-facie made out assuming without admitting that the allegations are be correct. Section 505(1) reads as follows: “505-Statements conducing to public mischief- (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report— (a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or (c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”