Case Name: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Equivalent citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 964
Date of judgement: 27 November 2020
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5598 of 2020)
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Appellant: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami
Respondents: The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Bench: Hon’ble Dr Chandrachud, Hon’ble Ms Malhotra, Hon’ble Ms Banerjee
Referred: Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, Arnab Goswami is the editor-in-chief of Republic TV, an English news channel. He is also the managing director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd. which operates a Hindi news channel called R Bharath. On the 4th of November 2020, the appellant was arrested under an FIR registered on the 5th of May 2018 by Akshyata Anvay Naik, who is the informant and spouse of the deceased Anvay Naik, who along with his mother Kumud Naik were directors of Concorde Designs Pvt. Ltd. and had allegedly committed suicide due to mental pressure caused by the appellant because of nonpayment of Rs. 83 lacs for an interior design project for which ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. had contracted with Concorde Designs Pvt. Ltd. In addition, Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda, who are appellants in the connected criminal appeal, owed the deceased an outstanding amount of Rs. 4 crores and Rs. 55 lacs respectively. The police had recovered from the scene a suicide note written by Anvay Naik, in which he held the three responsible for his and his mother’s suicide. After some time, by the 6th of November 2019, ARG addressed a letter to the informant recording the closure of the police investigation as the said people had paid all the dues. But in the month of April 2020, a broadcast made on Republic TV by the appellant led to the lodging of several FIRs and criminal complaints against him and the 2018 case was also reopened. As a result of all these happenings, the accused was detained. After he failed to attain bail from the Sessions Court, the accused invoked the jurisdiction of The High Court of Bombay under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sought three substantive reliefs:
i) A writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he claimed that he had been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report (CR No. 0059 of 2018) registered on the 5th of May 2018 under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in spite of an earlier closure report which the Magistrate had accepted;
ii) The quashing of the FIR mentioned above; and
iii) The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the appellant had been arrested.
A Division bench of the High Court of Bombay by an order dated 9 November 2020 noted that the prayer by which a writ of habeas corpus was sought was not pressed. The court did not accede to the prayer for the grant of bail by placing reliance on a decision of the same court in the State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani[1]. The Court was of the view that the appellant’s prayer for interim relief was based on the premise that he had been detained illegally and that the court would not entertain his request for bail or stay of investigation. The appellant being in judicial custody it was up to him to avail the bail under Section 439 of CrPC. This led the appellant, aggrieved by the denial of his interim prayer for grant of bail, to the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether or not the appellants be granted interim bail?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
Mr Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel submitted that:
- The appellant being the editor-in-chief of two prominent news channels had been targeted for his broadcasts in which he criticized the government and police of Maharashtra and hence the arrest of the appellant was rooted in malice;
- The allegations contained in the FIR, read as they stand, do not establish an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. To constitute the offence of abetment there must exist:
- A direct or indirect incitement to the commission of a crime;
- An active role of the accused in instigating or doing an act facilitating the commission of the crime; and
- The existence of a proximate relationship in time.
- Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted as they stand, no case of abetment has been established. It has been submitted that there was a contract entrusted by ARG for interior work with the deceased’s company. Also, it was not in dispute that while an amount of Rs. 5.45 crores had been paid, there was a commercial dispute pending in regard to the remaining payment between the two companies. It was also known that the deceased was suffering from mental pressure.
- Further, Mr Salve submitted that the judgement in Habib Jeelani had been wrongly interpreted by the High Court. It was argued that there was no reason to continue with the appellant’s arrest as there was no reasonable basis for his detainment and urged that he had been a target of the State government’s vendetta.
- He also submitted that in the interest of preserving the procedural hierarchy of courts must give way to the protection of the appellant’s personal liberty as the default rule is ‘bail, not jail’.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Mr Amit Desai, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that:
- The High Court had refrained from expressing a prima facie view on the issue of mala fides since an opportunity to do so was being granted to the State to file its counter. Also, the issue of whether or not the FIR is liable to be quashed was going to be taken up on the 10th of December 2020. Therefore, the court had rightfully declined from expressing a prima facie view;
- From this court’s judgement in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.[2], instigation to commit suicide has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. Therefore, even if there may not be direct evidence with respect to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide, inference has to be drawn from the prevailing circumstances whether they created a situation because of which a person felt totally frustrated and ended his life. While making a determination of quashing proceedings, the court has no obligation to form a firm view but only a tentative opinion;
- A hierarchy of courts is provided to consider an application of bail under Section 439 CrPC and in the present case there is no valid basis to by-pass that hierarchy in order to grant bail to the appellant.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The order dated 11 November 2020 envisaged the release of the appellants on bail. The Supreme Court held that human liberty is a precious constitutional value which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such the citizen is subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of CrPC.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the appellants on bail. “Post-independence, the recognition by Parliament[3] of the inherent power of the High Court must be construed as an aid to preserve the constitutional value of liberty”. “The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution”. The court also opined that this case is an instance where the appellant has been targeted because the opinions on his news channel are unpalatable to the government of Maharashtra. The court held that it is the “duty of the High Courts to function as a protector of liberty… and equally, it is its duty to ensure that law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment”.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court put personal liberty on a pedestal and held it to be one of the most important rights provided by the Constitution of India. The case raises concerns regarding the misuse of State power in a democracy. The Court also took the opportunity to point towards the huge number of bail applications currently pending in High Courts and District Courts across India. The data was obtained from National Judicial Data Grid which is available in the public realm.
[1] (2017) 2 SCC 779
[2] (2012) 9 SCC 734
[3] Section 482 of the CrPC 1973
Written by: Mahima Susan John, Govt. Law College, Thiruvananthapuran, 6th Sem.
