SC Grants Bail to Arnab Goswami, Rules Against State’s Malicious Arrest

The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Arnab Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, by granting him interim bail in a case related to alleged abetment of suicide. The Court criticized the Maharashtra government for its handling of the case, emphasizing that personal liberty cannot be curtailed based on vendetta. This judgment is a landmark decision reaffirming the constitutional right to liberty and the role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the alleged suicide of Anvay Naik, an interior designer, in May 2018. Naik had reportedly left a suicide note blaming Arnab Goswami and two others for not paying dues owed to him, leading him to take his own life. Following the initial investigation, the police filed an ‘A’ summary report, closing the case due to lack of evidence. However, in 2020, the Maharashtra government reopened the investigation, leading to Goswami’s arrest on November 4, 2020.

Arnab Goswami challenged the arrest, arguing that it was politically motivated and violated his fundamental rights. He filed a petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR and immediate bail. However, the High Court refused to grant interim relief, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Arnab Goswami)

Goswami’s legal team, led by senior advocate Harish Salve, presented the following arguments:

• The case had been closed in 2019 after police found no evidence, and reopening it was an abuse of power by the state government.
• The Maharashtra government had acted with malice and targeted Goswami for his critical reporting on the government.
• The allegations in the FIR did not meet the legal standards for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
• Detaining a journalist under such circumstances set a dangerous precedent and threatened press freedom.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Maharashtra)

The Maharashtra government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, countered the arguments as follows:

• The police had the right to reopen the case if new evidence emerged.
• Naik’s suicide note specifically blamed Goswami and two others, warranting further investigation.
• Goswami’s arrest followed due process, and he had the option to seek bail through regular legal channels.
• The High Court had correctly denied interim bail as there was no urgency in the matter.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee, made the following critical observations:

1. Importance of Personal Liberty

The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right that cannot be arbitrarily curtailed. It stated:

“Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many. The doors of this Court cannot be closed to a citizen who is able to establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law.”

2. Reopening of Investigation Was Unjustified

The Court found that the case had been closed with an ‘A’ summary in 2019, meaning there was no prosecutable evidence. It ruled that reopening the case without substantial new evidence was an abuse of power.

3. Lack of Prima Facie Case for Abetment of Suicide

The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 306 IPC and noted:

“To constitute abetment, there must be an active role, direct or indirect, in instigating or facilitating the commission of suicide. The allegations in the FIR do not meet this standard.”

4. High Court Erred in Denying Bail

The Supreme Court criticized the Bombay High Court for failing to evaluate the prima facie merits of the case. It ruled that the High Court should have granted interim bail, considering the circumstances.

5. Judicial Responsibility in Protecting Liberty

The Court underscored the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual rights:

“Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the deprivation of liberty of citizens.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arnab Goswami, granting him interim bail and directing his immediate release. The key points of the judgment were:

• The arrest was unlawful and based on political vendetta.
• The FIR did not disclose a cognizable offense under Section 306 IPC.
• The High Court erred in denying bail, ignoring established legal principles.
• All accused should be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Conclusion

This judgment is a landmark ruling that upholds the principles of personal liberty and judicial oversight in cases of potential state overreach. The Supreme Court’s firm stance on protecting fundamental rights sends a clear message against the misuse of legal procedures for political or personal vendettas. The ruling will have significant implications for similar cases where state authorities attempt to target individuals using criminal law.

Petitioner Name: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami.
Respondent Name: The State of Maharashtra & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra, India.
Judgment Date: 27-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Arnab Manoranjan Gos vs The State of Maharas Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category