PRIYA MUKHARJEE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with FIR No.143/2020 dated 6.10.2020 registered at Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 409 , 420 , 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC and later investigation was transferred to Crime Branch Unit, Mumbai as FIR No.843/2020 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 406, 120(B), 174, 179, 201, 204, 212 R/w 34 of IPC.

(2.) The petitioner in the petition would contend that she is working as a Chief Operating Officer of M/s. ARG Outlier Media Private Limited (ARG) and presently residing at No.10/11, Rainbow Garden, Bannerghatta Jigani Road, Bengaluru-560 105. The claim of the petitioner is that she works and operates Republic TV, one of the leading English news channels in India and a Hindi news channel in the name of R.Bharat. The Crime Branch, Mumbai, is reportedly investigating the alleged role of certain news channels in connection with FIR No.143/2020. The Commissioner and other Officers of the Mumbai police in separate interviews dated 08.10.2020 have alleged that Republic TV is involved in the alleged fake TRP scam and the key persons and employees will be summoned in this regard to appear before the investigation team in connection with FIR No.143/2020. The petitioner would submit that the notice was issued to her vide Notice dated 10.10.2020 as per Annexure-E and enclosure to Annexure-A, Notice is issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. dated 20.10.2020 and also issued Notice dated 13.11.2020. In response to the notice, she appeared before the Mumbai Police on 17.11.2020 and also on 18.11.2020 and her statement was recorded in detail on both the dates from 11.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. The petitioner would also submits that on 19.11.2020 addressed a letter to the Mumbai police that her father is not keeping well and the petitioner fully committed to cooperate in the investigation and the petitioner would be back to Mumbai as soon as her father's health improves and is willing to attend the investigation on any date as may be directed. The same is annexed as Annexure-H. The petitioner also relied upon the letter dated 20.11.2020 which is annexed as Annexure-J stating that she would appear before the Mumbai Police on 24.11.2020. The petitioner in the petition would contend that the Mumbai police in spite of Annexures-'H' and 'J' have rushed to Bengaluru and visited the house of the petitioner and also caused the Notice to appear before the Bannergatta Police fixing the date on 21.11.2020 vide notice dated 19.11.2020 and also issued one more notice dated 21.11.2020 calling upon the petitioner to be present at the Bannergatta Police Station fixing the date on 21.11.2020. The Mumbai Police are making hectic efforts to apprehend the petitioner and hence the petitioner was forced to approach this Court seeking relief of anticipatory bail.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition and also submitted written submission before this Court after arguing the matter in length.