The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted protection from arrest to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported about Ram Mandir donation theft in Ayodhya, in a road rage case filed against him..The Court also sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government to the plea filed by Upadhyay to quash the case against him..Upadhyay moved the Court alleging that the road rage case, which invokes provisions under the stringent Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act), was a counter blast to target him for his investigative reports on the Ram Mandir Trust and alleged corruption in the Uttar Pradesh administration.A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana today issued notice to the State of UP and ordered that no coercive action be taken against Upadhyay."Issue notice. Returnable on September 7. Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the FIR already registered or in such FIR, to our knowledge, that may be registered against him," the Court ordered.The Court also directed the UP Police to supply a copy of the FIR to Upadhyay."Similarly, let a copy of FIR registered at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to avail every remedy against such FIR in accordance with law. The Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, shall file a compliance report," the apex court directed.The matter will be heard next on September 7..Besides Ram Mandir donation embezzlement, Upadhyay had also published an investigative report concerning an IAS officer alleged to be very close to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The report highlighted the alleged purchase of agricultural land at Bhadohi in 2023 for approximately ₹20 crore, wherein the officer in question was allegedly shown as having the profession of “business”..The FIR against Upadhyay was lodged on August 18 on a complaint by a two-wheeler rider who alleged that Upadhyay hit his vehicle from behind and then threatened and abused him. Upadhyay was booked for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act..Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for Upadhyay, said that the FIR was lodged on "fictitious" grounds."He did the entire expose of Ayodhya, My Lord. Earlier also, he has done so many investigations. For each and every investigation, there is some FIR on some fictitious reason. I do not want any other relief other than a fair investigation," Rai argued."Suppose you hit a scooterist with your car,and then you get out of your car and give casteist abuses. Then, yes, it is an offence and it has to be seen. Let us hypothetically say, it can happen in various ways. If it is a completely imaginary and concocted story, then it is a different case," CJI Kant said."Nothing of this sort happened. That's why we are asking for the CCTV footage, My Lord. For that, you need some breathing time and space so that you can make out the case properly. They should give us the copy of the FIR and CCTV footage also...If they provide these two things, I will be able to," Rai responded..According to Upadhyay's plea, he was returning home after picking up his minor daughter from school when a motorcyclist came alongside his car to stop it and created a commotion. Being accompanied by his minor daughter, Upadhyay says that he did not engage in any confrontation - verbal or otherwise - and chose to de-escalate the situation. "It is submitted there was no collision, physical confrontation or further incident between Petitioner and the said person," he submitted..Upadhyay stated that the alleged incident was a staged one and that the complainant was planted by the State machinery in retaliation for his reporting.Upon learning of the allegations, Upadhyay requested his journalist colleagues to approach shops and other establishments near the alleged place of occurrence to ascertain the availability of CCTV footage. He then learnt that police personnel had already approached certain establishments and compelled them to delete/not provide CCTV footage relating to the relevant period. Further, the owner of the two-wheeler is not the complainant, but another person, it was pointed out..[Read Live Coverage]
