[Breaking] Supreme Court Orders Raigad Police to Release Arnab Goswami on Interim Bail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of Arnab Goswami and the co-accused on interim bail. The matter was listed before the vacation bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee. Mr Goswami had filed an interim petition challenging Bombay High Court's order denying him bail on November 9. He was arrested along with two others – Feroze Shaikh and Nitish Sarda for allegedly abetting the suicide of Anvay Naik back in 2018. 

The case witnessed strong arguments and remarks in the Supreme Court from both sides. A copy of the order can be accessed here.

Mr Goswami is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs 50,000 for release on interim bail.

Naik committed suicide due to financial stress: Justice Chandrachud

During the hearing, Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the provisions for abatement of suicide cannot be invoked on the ground of non-payment of money, 

"To make out a case of abetment, there has to be active incitement and encouragement. If money is owed to a person, is that a case of abetment to suicide? A owes money to B. B due to financial stress commit suicide. Will it attract offence under section 306 IPC? We are dealing with personal liberty here and because he was owed money, Naik committed suicide due to financial stress. Is this a case for custodial interrogation?", Justice Chandrachud

"it will be a travesty of justice if bail is not granted while FIR is pending", he added while responding to the arguments presented by Kapil Sibal.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve questioned the need for custodial interrogation when the facts about the withholding of money can be ascertained through documents.

“What’s the need for custodial interrogation? It’s just a smokescreen to teach the man a lesson.- Harish Salve

HCs are failing to exercise jurisdiction in cases of personal liberty

Justice Chandrachud also expressed disappointment that the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. He questioned the custody of Goswami and the denial of interim relief by the High Court.

The High Court did not deal with the aspect if the allegations constituted the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. But the HC "writes tones and tones of pages on why habeas is not maintainable even after that prayer was given up", Justice Chandrachud adds

If this is what our state governments are going to do to people who are to be nailed, then the Supreme Court has to intervene. There has to be a message to HCs- Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty. We are seeing case after case. HCs are failing to exercise jurisdiction Justice Chandrachud remarked. 

Technicality cannot be a ground to deny someone personal liberty. This is not a case of terrorism", he added

Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for Mr Goswami while Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Amit Desai argued on behalf of State of Maharashtra.