Delhi High Court Extends Interim Protection Granted to Journalist Vinod Dua

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The High Court of Delhi extended the interim protection granted to Vinod Dua in an FIR which alleges him of spreading misinformation and causing communal enmity on his YouTube channel.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Vinod Dua is a known journalist and television anchor. BJP spokesperson Naveen Kumar filed an FIR against Dua. He complained about a section of Vinod Dua’s YouTube show which had talked about the riots that had happened in the Northeast district of Delhi. Hence, Mr Dua is so-called for spreading rumour and misinformation about the sensitive issue of the Delhi riots through his webcast. So during the current COVID crisis, it is causing public disaffection, which shall cause hatred and ill-will between different communities. For this, Mr Dua filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 482 of CrPC. The plea prayed for the quashing of FIR registered under sections 290, 505, 505(2) of IPC.

In the last hearing, it came to notice that that there’s no prima facie case against the Petitioner. And there is no allegation that any adverse consequences occurred due to the webcast.

Arguments before Court

For the Petitioner Senior Advocate, Vikas Singh appeared. He claimed that when the petitioner receives anticipatory bail, the continuation of the proceedings will lead to significant misconduct. Because he would need to visit the police station repeatedly.

Mr Singh further argued that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in making the complaint and registration of the FIR. It got filed more than 70 days after the webcast.

Mr Anil Soni who appeared for the state opposed the submission. He submits that investigation in the matter is at a nascent stage and notice is only issued to YouTube. Also, the Petitioner has so far not even called for an investigation.

Court’s Observation

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. the State of Maharashtra in the last order.

The court further observed that there was a substantial unexplained delay in filing the complaint and registration of the FIR. It also observed that what the complainant allegedly said in the webcast, is not what appears in the transcript of the webcast.

Court’s Order

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani extends the interim protection. It is further noted that since a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the hearing in the present matter shall be adjourned till the Supreme Court takes the decision.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -