Court grants bail to two women journalists arrested in Hyderabad
Jakkula Ramesh, the lawyer for Revathi and Thanvi filed application before the court and argued for their immediate release citing the police acting under political pressure
Hyderabad: A local court in Hyderabad granted bail to two women journalists — Revathi Pogadadanda, managing director of Pulse Digital News Network; and Thanvi Yadav, an employee — who were arrested by the Telangana Police earlier this month for allegedly circulating content against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy.
G Kiran Kumar, senior advocate for Revathi and Thanvi, filed an application before the court and argued for their immediate release citing that the police were acting under political pressure. The public prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the bail application and asked for police custody citing the police needs to investigate the case.
“We informed the court that it is a case made out of nothing and under political pressure. As the accused are women and had cooperated in the investigation, we asked the court to grant them bail. The court accepted our argument and granted them bail,” said Kiran Kumar.
The court enlarged the journalists on bail and they were asked to furnish two sureties of Rs 25,000 each. The court had earlier ruled that invoking Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Revathi and Thanvi Yadav was unjustified and struck it down.
Kiran Kumar argued in the court at the time of her being sent to judicial remand that Section 111 was grossly disproportionate. “All the other sections invoked a maximum punishment of less than seven years. Hence, immediate arrest was not warranted,” he said, alleging that the women were arrested in haste due to political pressure.
As per the order on March 12, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate G Anusha, ruled that invoking Section 111 against them was unjustified. “The essential ingredients of Section 111 of the BNS do not attract at this stage as there is no involvement of monetary transactions or other factors mentioned under Section 111,” the court observed.
