NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1444 OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6864 of 2007]

Jonathan Nitin Brady               .....        Appellant

Versus

State of  West Bengal            ..... Respondent

O R D E R

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the order

dated 29.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta

in  C.R.M.  Petition  No.11072/2007.   By  the  impugned

order, the High Court has rejected the application of the

appellant  for  the  grant  of  pre-arrest  bail  filed  under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant

works as a Radio  Jockey at New Delhi  with the Radio

Channel ‘Red FM 93.5’, a channel owned by Digital Radio

(Delhi)  Broadcasting  Limited.   During  the  course  of

regular morning show called “Morning No.1” [hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Show’], that was broadcasted only in

New Delhi from 7-11 a.m., on 24.09.2007, the appellant

discussed one Mr. Prashant Tamang’s victory in the Tele-

Series  called  “Indian  Idol”  telecasted  on  Sony

Entertainment Television channel.   

4. On  25.09.1997,  it  came  to  the  appellant’s  knowledge

through  media  reports  that  sentiments  of  a  certain

section  of  the  public  in West  Bengal  were  purportedly

hurt  given  to  misinterpretation  of  the  above-said

discussion on the said show.   

5. On 27.09.1997,  certain  fans of  Mr.  Prashant  Tamang,

including  one  Mr.  Dinesh  Gurung,  filed  a  written

complaint  which  culminated  in  registration  of  FIR

2

No.125/2007  under  Section  153A  of  the  Indian  Penal

Code  [for  short  ‘IPC’]  against  the  appellant  in  Sadar

Police Station, Darjeeling.  The remarks attributed to the

appellant in the FIR read as follows:-

“If  Chowkidars  are  the  Indian  Idols (meaning  Prashant  Tamang),  then wherefrom we are to obtain Chowkidars.”

6. It was alleged in the FIR that the comments made by the

appellant  during  the  course  of  the  broadcast  on

24.09.2007 promoted ill-feelings amongst different races

and communities in India and that the activities of the

appellant were prejudicial to the communal harmony. On

the basis of the misinterpretation of appellant’s remarks

as  reported  in  certain  sections  of  the  media,  the

complainants  also  alleged  that  the  appellant  had

deliberately  insulted  the  “Gorkhali/Nepali”  community

and hence he was liable to be prosecuted for an offence

under  Section  153A  of  IPC.   In  furtherance  of  FIR

No.125/2007,  the  Inspector-in-Charge,  Sadar  P.S.

Darjeeling  (W.B.)  wrote  a  letter  dated  01.10.2007  to

3

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling, praying for

issuance of Warrant of Arrest against the appellant.  On

06.10.2007,  the  learned  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,

Darjeeling, issued warrant of arrest of the appellant.

7.     The appellant apprehending his arrest in connection

with the aforesaid case approached the High Court for

grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that he has never

made  the  statements  being  attributed  to  him  by  the

various  media  reports  and  produced  copy  of  the

transcripts  of  the  Show.   He  stated  that  the  requisite

mens rea for constituting an offence under Section 153A

of  IPC  was  missing  as  the  entire  Show was  based  on

humour  and  satire.   The  appellant  contended  that  he

had  not  made  any  implicit  or  explicit  statements

portraying  any  community  in  bad  light  or  disrespect.

However, on 26.09.2007 during the course of the Show

‘Morning No.1’, the appellant tendered an apology for any

unintentional  hurt  caused  to  the  sentiment  of  any

community  owing  to  any  misinterpretation  or  wrongly

portrayal of his remarks.  It was stated that during the

4

said broadcast,  Mr. Prashant Tamang appeared on the

Show vide a telephonic interview and himself clarified the

misunderstanding  and  stated  that  in  his  opinion  the

appellant had not made any derogatory remarks.   

8. The Radio Channel of which the appellant is an employee

issued a Press Release on 27.09.2007 congratulating Mr.

Tamang on his achievement and also quoting his specific

remarks regarding  the  entire  sequence  of  events  being

just  misunderstanding.   The  said  Channel  further

published  an  advertisement  saluting  Mr.  Tamang’s

victory on 28.09.2007 and reaffirming its commitment to

the  cause  of  promoting  musical  talent  in  North-East

India.   Vide  a  Press  Release  dated  29.10.2007,  the

Channel further tendered a formal public apology for any

inadvertent  hurt  that  might  have  been  caused  to  any

community or public in general.

9. It  was  in  these  circumstances  that  the  appellant

apprehending his arrest approached the High Court for

grant of anticipatory bail.  The High Court while rejecting

the application of the appellant made the following order:

5

“We have carefully heard the submissions made at the Bar.  We have also perused the  materials  in  the  Case  Diary  with utmost circumspection.  We find from the materials  collected  by  the  Investigating Agency that the elements of Section 153A of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  have satisfactorily been made out.

We  further  feel  that  tendering  of  the apology,  as  submitted  by  the  learned Senior  Counsel  for  the  petitioner,  in  our view,  cannot  modify  the  gravity  of  the situation  nor  whittle  down the  impact  of the remarks made by the petitioner.  The exact  words  spoken  by  the  petitioner squarely  attract  the  provision  of  Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code and we are also  of  the  firm view that  the  same  was uttered with necessary mens rea in mind.

We  cannot  be  oblivious  of  the  situation that has been pointed out on behalf of the State which has arisen as a fall out of such remark  made  by  the  petitioner  having widespread repercussion on the local area, from where Shri Prashant Tamang hails.

Keeping  in  mind  the  aforesaid  situation, we are of the considered view that this is not  a  fit  case  for  entertaining  the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

Accordingly, we reject the same.”

6

10. Now, the appellant has approached this Court by way of

special  leave  petition  challenging  the  correctness  and

validity of the order of the High Court.   

11. We have heard Mr. U. U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for

the appellant and Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, Advocate, for

the respondent-State.  

12. On prima facie scrutiny of the material on record, we are

of  the  view  that  in  the  backdrop  of  the  facts  and

circumstances narrated hereinabove it is a fit case where

the appellant is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

We do not see any satisfactory and convincing reason for

custodial  interrogation  of  the  appellant  for  the  alleged

offence  registered  against  him.   The  appellant  can  be

interrogated by the Investigating Officer  without taking

him in custody.  We, however, do not propose to embark

upon the merits of the case at this stage.   

13. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and order that in the

event of the arrest of the appellant for the alleged offence,

he  shall  be  released  on  bail  subject  to  the  following

conditions:-

7

(i)  The appellant shall furnish personal bond

in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent

surety of the like amount to the satisfaction

of  the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Darjeeling,

or the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The appellant shall make himself available

for  interrogation  as  and  when  he  is  so

directed  by  the  Investigating  Officer  by

sending written Hukumnama to him.

(iii)  The  appellant  shall  not  directly  or

indirectly make any inducement, promise or

threat  to  any  witness  acquainted  with  the

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the Court.

14. We have noticed that the High Court has made certain

observations in its above-extracted order, which, in our

opinion, are uncalled for and unwarranted at this stage

of the case.  The High Court ought not to have made the

said  observations  at  the  preliminary  stage  of  the

8

investigation  of  the  case,  which  may  have  caused

prejudice to the defence of the appellant during the trial

of the case.  We, therefore, make it clear that the said

observations shall not be taken into consideration by the

trial court at any stage of the proceedings of the case.

15. In  the  result,  this  appeal  is  allowed  in  the  above-said

terms and conditions.     

........................................J.                                                 (R. V. Raveendran)

........................................J.                                                (Lokeshwar Singh Panta) New Delhi, September 10, 2008.

9