Mumbai High Court to pronounce orders on Arnab Goswami’s bail plea on Monday, writes Anand Debsharma

Nov. 8: Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, arrested in an abetment of suicide case on November 4, failed to get any immediate relief on Saturday as the Bombay High Court reserved its order on his interim bail plea. A division bench comprising Justices S S Shinde and M S Karnik of Mumbai High Court will pronounce orders on Monday at 3 PM in court No.43 through Video Conferencing.

But the court by its order dated 7 November said that – “pendency of the present writ Petition / application for interim protection shall not be construed as an impediment to the Petitioner/ Applicant, in case the Petitioner/ Applicant if so advised, to avail of an appropriate remedy by way of filing an application for regular bail by invoking Section 439 Cr.P.C. In case, such application is filed, the concerned Court shall decide the same on its own merits, after hearing all the parties as expeditiously as possible, however, within four days from filing such application.”

Elsewhere, the Alibaug police in Raigad district on Thursday filed a revision application before a sessions court challenging the order passed by a lower court remanding Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and two others to judicial custody in an abetment of suicide case. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Sunaina Pingle, after perusal of the case diary and other relevant documents on Wednesday, noted that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish a link between the deceased and the accused persons. The police sought the session’s court to quash the CJM order and grant them custody of the three accused. The sessions court at Alibaug, around 90km from Mumbai, hear the application on November 9.

After hearing the marathon arguments, a division bench of Justices S S Shinde and M S Karnik of Mumbai High Court said it would not be possible to pass the order on Saturday itself. In para 2 and 3 of the Order dated 7th November,2020, the Hon`ble High Court clearly says that “Learned counsel appearing for the parties have restricted their arguments only for the purpose of adjudication of the present interim application. Arguments are concluded at 6.00 p.m. today. Reserved for orders.”

The above-mentioned interim application was filed by Arnab Goswami on 05/11/2020 Vide Interim Application No(ST) 4278 of 2020 in Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No.4132 of 2020 and the said interim application sought the following two main reliefs- (a) immediate release from illegal detention and wrongful custody (b) stay all further proceeding including the investigation of the FIR No.59 of 2018. The court, which on Saturday only heard arguments on interim bail, said it would hear the petitioners on quashing of the FIR on December 10, after Diwali vacation.

It needs mention here that Goswami was arrested on Wednesday morning in a case registered by the Raigad Police in 2018 for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 52-year old interior designer named Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik.

It was alleged that Anvay Naik left a suicide note written in English stating that he and his mother decided to take the extreme step on account of payments due to them not being cleared by the owners of three companies – television journalist Arnab Goswami of Republic TV, Feroz Shaikh of IcastX/Skimedia and Niteish Sarda of Smartworks.

Naik wrote in his suicide note that his company had executed interior works for Republic TV and an amount of Rs 83 lakh was due from Goswami and ARG Outlier Meida Pvt Ltd (parent company of Republic TV). The Raigad police had closed the case in April 2019 saying that they did not find evidence against the accused named in the suicide note, including Goswami.

Hence, in original Writ Petition, it is stated that investigation into FIR No. 59 of 2018 was closed and a ‘A’ Summary report was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibaug, Raigad on 16 April 2019 and there is no judicial order thereafter reopening the investigation/ reinvestigation or directing further investigation. There is no requirement to continue the illegal detention of the Petitioner as all records of the matter are with the Maharashtra police which had been provided by the Petitioner way back in 2019.

However, in May this year, Anvay’s daughter approached the Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh seeking the case to be reopened. Senior counsel Amit Desai, appearing for Maharashtra government, opposed bail, saying there was fresh material to reopen the case which had been closed earlier. The accused should have approached the session’s court first, and if they do so, the “police will not seek adjournments or prolong the hearing,” Desai said.

Desai also argued that just because Alibaug police had filed an `A’ Summary report closing the case, it does not mean there can be no fresh probe. “`A’ summary does not mean the offence did not occur or that the case is false. It only means that the investigation could not be completed. This is a matter that is now again under investigation,” he said.

Desai argued before the Mumbai High Court on Saturday that Arnab Goswami is not under “unlawful custody”. He is under custody based on a judicial order. Arrest happens before a person is produced before the Magistrate. The moment your “illegal arrest” has resulted in a judicial remand, the question of arrest is not relevant later. Issue of arrest is distinct from issue of custody. He also contended that no permission was required to be taken from the magistrate to carry out further probe.

“The state government ordered the (fresh) probe pursuant to which the police intimated the magistrate on October 15, 2020. The magistrate noted `Seen’ and kept the file on record. “After this, the statements of several witnesses including the victim’s family were recorded before the magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C,” he said. He also argued by showing an example, suppose, a case of terrorism where evidence is not traceable. After a period of time, police files ‘A’ summary before Magistrate. After some time, police gets evidence of terrorist. Should police wait for Magistrate’s order to nab him?

The HC, meanwhile, also sought response from the state government on a petition filed by Anvay Naik’s daughter Adnya Naik seeking a fresh probe by an independent agency. It will be heard on December 8. Goswami’s lawyers, during the hearing earlier, had claimed that the allegations against him were baseless and Maharashtra government only wanted to harass him because of his outspokenness as a journalist.