Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court on Monday, February 3, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to Reporter TV’s consulting editor Arun Kumar K. and sub-editor Shabas Ahammed, who were booked under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for allegedly sexually harassing a minor girl through words and gestures. The court had previously granted the petitioners interim anticipatory bail on January 20.

A Single Judge bench comprising Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, delivered the verdict in the case arising from a segment aired by Reporter TV on January 6, 2025, during the Kerala State School Youth Festival. The segment featured a teleskit involving participants of an Oppana competition. The prosecution alleged that Shabas Ahammed acted as a spectator engaging in a suggestive conversation with a minor participant dressed as a manavatti (bride). Arun Kumar K. later commented on this segment in a news discussion on January 8, reportedly pointing towards the manavatti (bride) of an Oppana dance team and asked, “Did you see that Oppana girl again?”. Kumar allegedly further stated that the two individuals should not see each other again.

The prosecution alleged that the words and gestures used in the segment were inappropriate and could carry sexual undertones, justifying an investigation under the POCSO Act. A third party, represented by Advocate Krishna Raj, attempted to intervene in the case by way of an intervening application, alleging that the accused had deliberately made indecent remarks to boost the channel’s TRP ratings. The intervenor also submitted that a separate complaint had been filed against the journalists under Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

On the other hand, the petitioners argued that the segment in question was a scripted skit performed with the consent of the child’s parents and teacher, and it lacked any sexual intent to warrant charges under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act. It was contended that there was no criminal element in the statements made during the subsequent news discussion. Additionally, they highlighted that the police had only issued notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which indicated that there was no immediate intention to arrest. It was further emphasised that the petitioners had been fully cooperating with the investigation, making their arrest unnecessary.

The court dismissed the third-party intervention, stating that a private individual cannot intervene in a bail hearing. After reviewing the content of the conversation, the court held that prima facie, the alleged remarks did not constitute a criminal offence under the POCSO Act but acknowledged that the journalists should have exercised better judgment.

The court cited precedents including Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019), Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021), and Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2023), to emphasise the principle of “bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.”

“I am of the prima facie opinion that these conversation may not amounts to any criminal offence. But, may be inappropriate questions, which ought to have been avoided by the petitioners, especially when they are senior reporters of a channel. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail can be granted to the petitioners,” the court remarked, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The court, however, clarified that the investigation could proceed without being influenced by its observations in the bail order.

 

Cause Title: Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala [BA 778/ 2025]

Appearance: The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, along with Advocates P.K. Varghese, M.T. Sameer, Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Jerry Mathew, Reghu Sreedharan, and Devika K.R. The State was represented by Special Government Pleader P. Narayanan.