Journalist not expected to dramatize a horrifying or sensational incident and make news: Allahabad High Court

While rejecting the bail plea moved by a journalist accused of inducing a man to die by suicide so that it could be filmed, the Allahabad High Court observed that a journalist is not expected to dramatize such a sensational or horrifying incident to make news ( Shameem Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh ).

. Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav declined to grant bail after taking note that there was enough material to prima facie rule out the journalist's claims that he was innocent in the case.

. Taking a dim view of the alleged events, the Court further made pertinent observations on what journalists are expected to do and what lines they cannot cross.

. "The journalist keeps an eye on the anticipated or sudden events happening in the society and brings them to the information of all the people through various news media without any tampering, this is his business. A journalist is not expected to dramatize a sensational and horrifying incident and make news by putting his actor in pitiable condition in danger of death ", the Court said. . The Court further noted that if bail is granted to the accused journalist, the deceased man's wife, who is the complainant in the case, would be in danger.

. " The complainant, who is already mentally distressed by her husband's financial condition, who further committed suicide under the influence of the accused, if the accused is made free, she would be in danger. She is the main witness in the case. For fair trial, the complainant would need a completely fear-free environment as a witness. She has the right to have a fair trial of the matter", the order stated.

. In this regard, the Court also took note that the accused journalist has earlier been accused in eleven criminal cases. These criminal details cast doubt on whether the accused would take undue advantage of his immunity and his status on bail, the Court said.

. As such, the Court dismissed the jail plea moved by journalist, Shameem Ahmad. For his alleged crime, Ahman was charged with offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 511, 109, 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the wife of the deceased.

. Case background . As per the prosecution, journalists Shameem and Naushad Ahmad (a co-accused) had contacted the deceased man, Surendra Chakraborty, and induced him to set himself ablaze in front of the Vidhan Sabha Bhawan so that they may film the incident and telecast it.

. The deceased man and his wife were stated to have been residing in Lucknow for 10-12 years as a tenant in a house owned by one, Zaved Khan (also a co-accused), who had wanted the couple to vacate the house.

. The couple had also filed a suit against Khan alleging that he was harassing them in order to get them to vacate the house. The Court was told that at one point, Khan came to the house and started abusing the deceased man in filthy language, while asking him to vacate the house.

. When the couple expressed their inability to vacate the house and spoke of their financial troubles, the landlord is alleged to have scoldingly told the deceased to set himself ablaze and die.

. Thereafter, the two accused journalists allegedly contacted the deceased man and influenced that he set himself ablaze in front of the Legislative Assembly so that the same may be filmed for telecast. The journalists allegedly suggested to the deceased that if the incident is so highlighted in the media, no one would forcibly evict him from the house.

. It is stated that the deceased died on on October 24, 2020 after he immolated himself according to this plan, despite the efforts of policemen present to save him.

. The accused journalists allegedly filmed the incident. Video footage on the incident disclosed that a man, identified as one of the accused journalists, was at the Legislative Assembly filming the deceased even before he set himself ablaze, the Court noted. It was also noted that instead of saving the deceased while he was burning, the accused kept filming the incident.

. A journalist is not expected to dramatize a sensational and horrifying incident and make news by putting his actor in pitiable condition in danger of death. Allahabad High Court . The Court concluded that it is established that prima facie, the accused had tempted the deceased to die by suicide suicide.

. Whereas the accused journalist urged the Court for the grant of bail since the co-accused landlord had already been granted bail, the Bench observed that the two co-accused could not be treated on parity.

. The landlord, Zaved Khan had only made a passing remark to "go and die", the Court observed. The deceased died by suicide days later. As such, there is no overt act on Khan's part to compel the deceased to die by suicide, the Court opined.

. While dismissing the bail plea, the Court has also directed the trial court to expeditiously proceed with the trial and conclude the same within one year.

. [Read order]

Journalist not expected to dramatize a horrifying or sensational incident and make news: Allahabad High Court

Areeb Uddin Ahmed

Related Stories