Allahabad HC Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Woman Accused Of Falsely Posing As 'Aaj Tak' Reporter

Observing that the matter requires consideration, a bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Padam Narain Mishra directed that the petitioner, Maneesha Thakur, shall not be arrested until further orders in connection with the impugned FIR.

The bench has also issued notices to the respondents, including the State, seeking their counter-affidavits within 6 weeks. The matter has been listed for admission on August 4, 2026.

Briefly put, the FIR against Thakur was lodged in April this year by Madan Gopal Sharma, a correspondent for 'Aaj Tak' news channel, alleging that she had been circulating a photograph and other misleading posts on her Facebook account.

The FIR alleged that the photograph depicted Thakur sitting before the CM alongside prominent Mathura businessman Rajeev Brijwasi and his son.

According to the FIR, the photograph prominently showed a microphone bearing the 'Aaj Tak' logo placed on the CM's table.

The informant claimed this was a deliberate attempt by the accused to falsely project herself as an authorized journalist of the esteemed news channel, despite the fact that she had no association with the media organization.

The complaint further alleged that this act of impersonation and the misuse of the channel's name, logo and microphone ID was completely fake, misleading and illegal, which was intended to gain undue influence and cheat the public.

Consequently, the petitioner was booked under Sections 318(4) [Cheating] and 319 [Cheating by Personation] BNS as well as Sections 66C [Identity Theft] and 66D [cheating by personation] of the IT Act.

Challenging this FIR, the petitioner approached the High Court wherein her counsel argued that no offence under any of the charging sections was made out.

It was her specific claim before the HC that she holds registered copyrights for the logo "Aaj Tak News Bharat" and therefore, it cannot be said that she violated the copyrights of another media agency.

The State, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition as it was argued that the FIR clearly disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, and thus, no interference was warranted at this prima facie stage.

The division bench, however, noted that the matter requires consideration and it issued a notice to the first informant and granted 6-weeks to the respondents to file their counter affidavits.

Considering the facts, circumstances, and the submissions urged, the Court, as an interim measure, directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the case.