New Delhi, Oct 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court has stayed a Telangana High Court order that permitted the state police to take two women journalists into custody, despite their being granted bail in a case involving an alleged objectionable video against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner-journalists.
During the hearing, Dave argued that once bail is granted, police custody cannot be sought unless the bail is formally cancelled.
He submitted that while the police are entitled to call an accused for investigation, taking them into custody while bail remains operative is impermissible in law.
The bench issued notice to the State of Telangana, seeking its response.
The case arises from an FIR registered over a video posted on a social media platform X, allegedly showing a Pulse TV representative posing provocative questions to a person who made abusive and derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.
Based on these allegations, the petitioners, the Managing Director and News Reporter of Pulse News, were booked under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 11, 61(2), 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the petition, the journalists were granted bail on March 17 by the Judicial Magistrate’s Court.
However, nearly 200 days later, the police sought to take them into custody for “further questioning,” despite their continued cooperation with the investigation and without cancellation of bail.
The plea states that the petitioners have regularly appeared before the Investigating Officer, and that all relevant electronic devices, including those from the Pulse News office and the journalists’ personal devices, have already been seized.
Terming the move an instance of “State high-handedness against senior journalists,” the plea asserts that the order granting police custody was mechanical, unreasoned, and politically motivated, aimed at harassment.
The prosecution, however, has contended that the petitioners were responsible for editing and broadcasting the objectionable content, and their custody was necessary to seize mobile phones and electronic devices allegedly containing the videos in question.
The matter will next be heard after the Telangana government files its response.
