New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to NewsClick’s founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha in two cases, including one lodged by the Delhi Police concerning foreign funding, taking note of the “prolonged investigations” by probe agencies.
Besides the foreign-funding case, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted Purkayastha the relief in a money-laundering case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The court said there is nothing on record to suggest that since 2023, Purkayastha was ever called to join the investigations.
“The applicant is a respectable man, aged about 75 years, having roots in the society. The evidence is essentially documentary in nature and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or of influencing the witnesses,” it said.
The court pronounced the order on Purkayastha’s pleas that were filed in 2021.
Purkayastha was earlier arrested in another case lodged under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Supreme Court, on May 24, 2024, declared his arrest invalid in the eyes of law and ordered his release from custody.
The apex court said a copy of the written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a “matter of course and without exception at the earliest” and in this case, the grounds of arrest in writing were not provided to Purkayastha or his counsel before the passing of the remand order.
Purkayastha was arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police in the UAPA case on October 3, 2023.
In a separate order, the court also granted anticipatory bail to NewsClick director Pranjal Pandey (28) in a case registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), saying the evidence is essentially documentary in nature and there is no likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses.
While granting anticipatory bail to Purkayastha, the high court said, “Personal liberty is a precious constitutional value and cannot be tampered with casually. The objective behind depriving an individual of his personal liberty must be founded on serious considerations. An accused, as a presumed innocent person, is entitled to present his case and establish his innocence.”
Regarding the money-laundering case, the court said the allegations against Purkayastha are regarding misusing and siphoning off funds received from foreign companies and violating the rules of the Reserve Bank of India.
It noted that the cases were registered in 2020 but even with regard to the predicate offence, the investigations have not been concluded nor any chargesheet has been filed.
Granting the relief in the Delhi Police case, the court said the virtue of personal liberty is such that the Constitution protects it through Article 21 and it is not a casual right that can be tampered with, without serious considerations.
Justice Krishna also referred to a previous judgment delivered by a coordinate bench of the high court, in which it was held that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, take judgment and serve a sentence if the court punishes him with imprisonment, but bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
The court said in the event of arrest, both the accused should be admitted to anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bonds of Rs 25,000 each with one surety of the like amount.
It also asked the accused to join the probe as and when called by the investigating officers and not to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
In 2021, the high court had granted interim protection from arrest to Purkayastha and Pandey in these cases.
The allegations in the FIR lodged by the Delhi Police are that the petitioner company, PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited, received foreign direct investment (FDI) to the tune of Rs 9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC USA during the financial year 2018-19.
It was alleged that the investment was made by greatly overvaluing the shares of the petitioner company to avoid the alleged FDI cap of 26 per cent in a digital news website.
It was further alleged that more than 45 per cent of this investment was diverted or siphoned off for the payment of salary or toward consultancy, rent and other expenses for ulterior motives. Therefore, it is alleged that the company has violated the FDI norm and other laws of the country and caused a loss to the government exchequer.
The ED took cognisance of the Delhi Police FIR to launch a money-laundering probe in this instance and conducted searches on the premises of the digital news platform and several other places in connection with the money received from overseas.
