Listen to this articleArnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra
and Ors.
Criminal
Appeal No. 742-744 of 2020 dated 27-November-2020
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Facts:
The present case arises from the habeas
corpus petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of Bombay High
Court which refused to grant him and other two co-accused interim bail. The
three accused were arrested by Alibaug police in Maharashtra’s Raigad district
on November 4 in connection with the suicide of architect-interior designer
Anvay Naik and his mother in 2018 over alleged non-payment of dues by companies
of the accused. The Bombay High Court, while rejecting the interim bail pleas
had said, “no case has been made out for us (court) to exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction”. The
high court instead asked them to approach the trial court for relief.
Aggrieved by such order, the appellants challenged the order of High Court.
Issue:
The
Supreme Court considered the following issue:
1.
Whether the order of Bombay High Court denying bail to the
appellants is justified and in accordance with the law? If not, whether the
accused and co-accused should be granted bail?
Arguments:
|
Appellant |
Respondent |
|
Shri Harish Salve,
learned senior counsel submitted that: 1.
The arrest of the appellant is rooted in malice in fact, which is evident
from the manner in which the appellant as the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV
and R Bharat has been targeted for his news broadcasts criticizing the
Maharashtra government and the Maharashtra police. 2.
Following the acceptance of the police report and the issuance of an ‘A’
summary on 16 April 2019, the reinvestigation which has been ordered at the
behest of the Home Minister of the State of Maharashtra is ultra vires.
Further, in the absence of the specific permission of the CJM, it was not
open to the State to conduct a reinvestigation. |
Shri Amit
Desai, learned senior counsel submitted that: 1. A
hierarchy of courts is provided for to consider an application for bail under
Section 439 of the CrPC. In the present case, there is no valid basis to
by-pass that hierarchy in order to grant relief to the appellant. 2. An
application for bail was initially filed on behalf of the appellant which was
withdrawn after the order for judicial custody was passed. An application for
bail has been filed after the High Court while reserving judgment granted
liberty to do so with a direction for its disposal within four days. Hence,
it is appropriate that the appellant is relegated to pursue the remedies
under Section 439. |
Held:
The Supreme Court after due
consideration of the facts of the case and submissions granted bail to the appellant and two
other co-accused. The Supreme Court observed that courts should ensure that criminal law
does not become a weapon for selective harassment of citizens. The court further observed that prima facie, it
could not be held that the appellants had abetted the suicide of Anvay Naik.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to establish
whether or not there was a prima facie case under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code (abetment to suicide) against the journalist. Highlighting
the factors that High Courts need to consider while deciding to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of bail, the Supreme
Court noted,
“The
appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight risk during the
investigation or the trial. There is no apprehension of tampering of evidence
or witnesses. Taking these factors into consideration, the order dated 11
November 2020 envisaged the release of the appellants on bail.”
The bench
also asserted that the
High Court had failed to consider that Goswami was made a target on previous
occasions. The Supreme Court, hence, disposed the appeals and remarked that:
“We have
given expression to our anguish in a case where a citizen has approached this
court. We have done so in order to reiterate principles which must govern
countless other faces whose voices should not go unheard.”