# ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 11 S.C.R. 896
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-11-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arnab-manoranjan-goswami-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-34536
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Arts. 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.482 and s.439 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.306 and
s. 34 - The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2020 in connection
with FIR registered u/s. 306 and s.34 of the IPC - It was alleged that
the appellant had not paid an amount due to the deceased for the
work which was carried out by him, as a result of which he was
under mental pressure and he committed suicide by hanging - In the
suicide note three individuals were held responsible including the
appellant - The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/
Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution and s.482 of the Cr.P.C. and sought
quashing of FIR along with other reliefs - Pending the disposal of
the petition, the appellant filed an application and sought his release
from the judicial custody - The High Court held that since the
appellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him avail of the
remedy of bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. - The High Court declined
prima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that the
allegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose the
commission of an offence u/s. 306 of the IPC - The appellant filed
an appeal before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the denial of his
interim prayer for the grant of bail - On 11.11.2020, the Supreme
Court, after reserving the judgment, ordered and directed the release
of all the three individuals including appellant on bail pending the
disposal of the proceedings before the High Court - Held: According
to the spouse of the deceased, her husband was over the previous
two years 'having pressure as he did not receive the money of work
carried out by him' - The deceased left behind a suicide note stating
that his "money is stuck and following owners of respective companies
are not paying our legitimate dues" - The consistent line of authority
of Supreme Court lays down that in order to bring a case within the
 [2020] 11 S.C.R. 896
896
purview of s.306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role
by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide - Therefore, the act of abetment by the person
charged with the said offence must be proved and established by
the prosecution - In the instant case, prima facie, on the application
of test laid down by the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the
appellant was guilty of having abetted suicide within the meaning
of s.306 of the IPC - The High Court in failing to notice the contents
of FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role,
functions and jurisdiction when seized of petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.-
As a consequence of its failure to perform its function u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction u/Art.226
to consider appellant's application for bail - While considering
application u/Art. 226, the High Court must be circumspect in
exercising its power on the basis of the facts of each case - However,
the High court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the
power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal
liberty in an excess of state power - Therefore, the interim protection
granted to the accused on 11.11.2020 continue to remain in operation
pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court.
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Power to grant interim bail
- The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR registered u/s.
306 and s.34 of the IPC - Appellant filed petition u/Art.226/227 of
the Constitution and u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR
and the arrest memo - Thereafter, the appellant filed application for
interim bail - The High Court declined to evaluate prima facie at the
interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether an
arguable case has been made out - The High Court further declined
to al

## Text

_Characters 0–39,769 of 121,920. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39769 for what follows._

ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020
NOVEMBER 27, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Arts. 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.482 and s.439 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.306 and
s. 34 - The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2020 in connection
with FIR registered u/s. 306 and s.34 of the IPC - It was alleged that
the appellant had not paid an amount due to the deceased for the
work which was carried out by him, as a result of which he was
under mental pressure and he committed suicide by hanging - In the
suicide note three individuals were held responsible including the
appellant - The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/
Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution and s.482 of the Cr.P.C. and sought
quashing of FIR along with other reliefs - Pending the disposal of
the petition, the appellant filed an application and sought his release
from the judicial custody - The High Court held that since the
appellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him avail of the
remedy of bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. - The High Court declined
prima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that the
allegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose the
commission of an offence u/s. 306 of the IPC - The appellant filed
an appeal before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the denial of his
interim prayer for the grant of bail - On 11.11.2020, the Supreme
Court, after reserving the judgment, ordered and directed the release
of all the three individuals including appellant on bail pending the
disposal of the proceedings before the High Court - Held: According
to the spouse of the deceased, her husband was over the previous
two years 'having pressure as he did not receive the money of work
carried out by him' - The deceased left behind a suicide note stating
that his "money is stuck and following owners of respective companies
are not paying our legitimate dues" - The consistent line of authority
of Supreme Court lays down that in order to bring a case within the
 [2020] 11 S.C.R. 896
896
purview of s.306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role
by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide - Therefore, the act of abetment by the person
charged with the said offence must be proved and established by
the prosecution - In the instant case, prima facie, on the application
of test laid down by the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the
appellant was guilty of having abetted suicide within the meaning
of s.306 of the IPC - The High Court in failing to notice the contents
of FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role,
functions and jurisdiction when seized of petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.-
As a consequence of its failure to perform its function u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction u/Art.226
to consider appellant's application for bail - While considering
application u/Art. 226, the High Court must be circumspect in
exercising its power on the basis of the facts of each case - However,
the High court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the
power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal
liberty in an excess of state power - Therefore, the interim protection
granted to the accused on 11.11.2020 continue to remain in operation
pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court.
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Power to grant interim bail
- The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR registered u/s.
306 and s.34 of the IPC - Appellant filed petition u/Art.226/227 of
the Constitution and u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR
and the arrest memo - Thereafter, the appellant filed application for
interim bail - The High Court declined to evaluate prima facie at the
interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether an
arguable case has been made out - The High Court further declined
to allow the appellant's prayer for interim bail and relegated him to
the remedy u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. - Aggrieved, the appellant filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court - It was submitted by the
respondents that procedural hierarchy of Courts in matters
concerning the grant of bail needs to be respected - Held: The
respondents are right in submitting that the procedural hierarchy of
courts in matters concerning the grant of bail needs to be respected
- However, there was a failure of the High Court to discharge its
adjudicatory function at two levels - first in declining to evaluate
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
prima facie at the interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as
to whether an arguable case has been made out, and secondly, in
declining interim bail, as a consequence of its failure to render a
prima facie opinion on the first - The High Court did have the power
to protect the citizen by an interim order in a petition invoking Art.
226 - Where the High Court has failed to do so, Supreme Court
would be abdicating its role and functions as a constitutional court
if it refuses to interfere, despite the parameters for such interference
being met.
Words and Phrases - "Human Liberty and the role of the Courts" -
discussed.
Disposing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant
had a company carrying on the business of architecture, interior
design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant,
her husband was over the previous two years "having pressure
as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him". The
FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the
appellant and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money.
Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the
deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his "money is
stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying
our legitimate dues". Prima facie, on the application of the test
which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of
authority, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having
abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC.
These observations, are prima facie at this stage since the High
Court is still to take up the petition for quashing. Clearly however,
the High Court in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to
make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions and
jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section 482 of the
CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position that the
jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to be exercised
sparingly. These words, however, are not meaningless
incantations, but have to be assessed with reference to the
contents of the particular FIR before the High Court. If the High
Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
been impossible for it not to notice the disconnect between the
FIR and the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. The failure of
the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it
left the appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under
Section 439. The High Court was clearly in error in failing to
perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition
under Section 482 albeit at the interim stage. [Para 55][939-F-H;
940-A-D]
2. The petition before the High Court was instituted under
Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. While
dealing with the petition under section 482 for quashing the FIR,
the High Court has not considered whether prima facie the
ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. If the
High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would have
been apparent that the ingredients of the offence have not prima
facie been established. As a consequence of its failure to perform
its function under Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself
from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider the
appellant's application for bail. In considering such an application
under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in
exercising its powers on the basis of the facts of each case.
However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the
exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived
of their personal liberty in an excess of state power. [Para 56]
[940-D-G]
3. While considering an application for the grant of bail under
Article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must consider the
settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court.
These factors can be summarized as follows: (i) The nature of the
alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of
the punishment in the case of a conviction; (ii) Whether there
exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with
the witnesses or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) The
antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused; (v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence
are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
FIR; and (vi) The significant interests of the public or the State
and other similar considerations. [Para 57][940-D-H; 941-A-C]
4. These principles have evolved over a period of time and
emanate from the following (among other) decisions: Prahlad Singh
Bhati vs NCT, Delhi; Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh;
State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis
Chatterjee; Sanjay Chandra vs CBI; P. Chidambaram vs Central
Bureau of Investigation. [Para 58][941-D]
5. These principles are equally applicable to the exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the court
is called upon to secure the liberty of the accused. The High Court
must exercise its power with caution and circumspection, cognizant
of the fact that this jurisdiction is not a ready substitute for
recourse to the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. In
the backdrop of these principles, it has become necessary to
scrutinize the contents of the FIR in the case at hand. In this
batch of cases, a prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not
establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide
under Section 306 of the IPC. 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. [Para 59][941-E-G; 942-A]
6. 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 the CrPC "or prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". Decisions of
this court require the High Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction
entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection.
In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power
with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded
on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to
artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due
investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent
power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is
one - and a significant - end of the spectrum. The other end of the
spectrum is equally important: the recognition by Section 482 of
the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of
process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard
for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898
was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to constitutional
rights and limitations; yet it recognized the inherent power in
Section 561A. Post Independence, the recognition by Parliament
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 need to ensure
the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself,
because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a
more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that
crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. On
the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which
the High Court and the lower Courts in this country must be alive.
In the present case, the High Court could not but have been
cognizant of the specific ground which was raised before it by the
appellant that he was being made a target as a part of a series of
occurrences which have been taking place since April 2020. The
specific case of the appellant is that he has been targeted because
his opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority.
Whether the appellant has established a case for quashing the
FIR is something on which the High Court will take a final view
when the proceedings are listed before it but we are clearly of the
view that in failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of the
FIR, the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function
as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the need to
safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement
of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is
an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum -
the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court -
to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the
selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
ends of the spectrum - the need to ensure the proper enforcement
of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of
ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted
harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous
can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the
cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive
to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a
casualty when one of these components is found wanting. [Para
60][942-B-H; 943-A-D]
7. The respondents are undoubtedly right in submitting
that the procedural hierarchy of courts in matters concerning the
grant of bail needs to be respected. However, there was a failure
of the High Court to discharge its adjudicatory function at two
levels - first in declining to evaluate prima facie at the interim
stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether an arguable
case has been made out, and secondly, in declining interim bail,
as a consequence of its failure to render a prima facie opinion on
the first. The High Court did have the power to protect the citizen
by an interim order in a petition invoking Article 226. Where the
High Court has failed to do so, this Court would be abdicating its
role and functions as a constitutional court if it refuses to interfere,
despite the parameters for such interference being met. 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. Our courts must ensure that
they continue to remain the first line of defense against the
deprivation of the liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty even
for a single day is one day too many. [Para 61][943-E-H]
Amalendu Pal vs State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC
707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836; S S Chheena vs Vijay Kumar
Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111;
Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC
629 : [2010] 10 SCR 351; M Arjunan vs State
(represented by its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC
315; Ude Singh and Ors. vs State of Haryana [2019] 9
SCR 703; Rajesh vs State of Haryana (2020) 15
 SCC 359; Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (2020)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
903
10 SCC 200; Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak
Deorao Bhagat (2019) 13 SCC 598 : [2018] 14
SCR 232; Romila Thapar vs Union of India (2018) 10
SCC 753 : [2018] 11 SCR 951 - relied on.
State of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017) 2
SCC 779 : [2017] 1 SCR 141; Praveen Pradhan vs State
of Uttaranchal and Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 734 : [2012] 8
SCR 1129; Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of
Gujarat 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1346; Madan Mohan
Singh vs State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628 : [2010]
10 SCR 351; Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Central Bureau of
Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 : [2015] 1 SCR 377;
Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 :
[2018] 6 SCR 1; Vineet Narain and Ors. vs Union of
India and Ors.(1998) 1 SCC 226: [1997] 6 Suppl.
SCR 595; Hema Mishra vs State of UP. (2014) 4 SCC
453: [2014] 1 SCR 465; State of Haryana vs Bhajan
Lal 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR
259; Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of
Maharashtra (2019) 14 SCC 350; State of West Bengal
vs Orilal Jaiswa1 (1994) 1 SCC : [1993] 2 Suppl.
 SCR 461; Randhir Singh vs State of Punjab (2004) 13
SCC 129 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 351; Kishori Lal vs
State of MP (2007) 10 SCC 797 : [2007] 7
SCR 1051; Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs State of
Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52 : [2009] 1 SCR 672; Vaijnath
Kondiba Khandke vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(2018) 7 SCC 781; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT, Delhi
(2001) 4 SCC 280:[2001] 2 SCR 684; Ram Govind
Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 :
[2002] 2 SCR 526; State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi
(2005) 8 SCC 21 : [ 2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC
496:[2010] 12 SCR 1165; Sanjay Chandra vs CBI
(2012) 1 SCC 40: [2011] 13 SCR 309; P. Chidambaram
vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 13 SCC 337;
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand (1977) 4 SCC
308:[1978] 1 SCR 535 - referred to.
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 1 SCR 141
referred to
Para 3
[2012] 8 SCR 1129
referred to
Para 25(iv)
[2010] 10 SCR 351
relied on
Para 31
[2015] 1 SCR 377
referred to
Para 31
[2018] 6 SCR 1
referred to
Para 31
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595
referred to
Para 31
[2014] 1 SCR 465
referred to
Para 43
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259
referred to
Para 44
(2019) 14 SCC 350
relied on
Para 44
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 461
referred to
Para 47
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 351
referred to
Para 47
[2007] 7 SCR 1051
referred to
Para 47
[2009] 1 SCR 672
referred to
Para 47
[2009] 15 SCR 836
relied on
Para 47
[2010] 9 SCR 1111
relied on
Para 47
[2010] 10 SCR 351
referred to
Para 48
(2019) 3 SCC 315
referred to
Para 50
[2019] 9 SCR 703
relied on
Para 51
(2020) 15 SCC 359
relied on
Para 51
(2020) 10 SCC 200
relied on
Para 51
(2018) 7 SCC 781
referred to
Para 52
[2018] 14 SCR 232
relied on
Para 54
[2001] 2 SCR 684
referred to
Para 58
[2002] 2 SCR 526
referred to
Para 58
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454
referred to
Para 58
[2010] 12 SCR 1165
referred to
Para 58
[2011] 13 SCR 309
referred to
Para 58
(2020) 13 SCC 337
referred to
Para 58
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
[2018] 11 SCR 951
relied on
Para 62
[1978] 1 SCR 535
referred to
Para 63
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 742 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2020 of the High Court
of Bombay in the Interim Application 4278 of 2020 in Criminal Writ
Petition (St.) No. 4132 of 2020.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 743 & 744 of 2020.
Harish Salve, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Abaad Ponda, Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, Mukul Rohtagi, Kapil Sibal, Amit Desai, Devdatta
Kamat, C. U. Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Saket Shukla, Vasanth
Rajasekaran, Mrinal Ojha, Debarshi Dutta, Rajat Pradhan, Biswadeep
Chakravorty, Ms. Madhavi Doshi, Sanjeev Sambasivan, Siddhant Kumar,
Ms. Kajri Roy, Ms. Chetna N. Rai, Ms. Sheena Iype, Nirnimesh Dube,
Ms. Rashi Bansal, Ms. Esha Bhadoria, Sameer Singh, Vijay Agarwal,
Mahesh Agarwal, Gaurav Kejriwal, Ishwar Nankni, Aditya Kanodia,
Samir Ali Khan, Mudit Jain, Rahul Agarwal, Nishant Rao, Ankit Kohli,
Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Dipak Thakre, Hemant Shah, Geo Joseph, F.
I. Choudhury, Noor Ul Islam, Vaibhav Karnik, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgement of the Court was delievered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis.
They are:
A
The appeal
B
The parties, the FIR and A' Summary
C
Previous proceedings against the appellant
D
Re-opening of investigation and arrest of the appellant
E
Submissions of Counsel
F
Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl)
No. 5599 of 2020)
G
Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl)
No. 5600 of 2020)
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
H
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and Section
482 CrPC
I
Prima Facie evaluation of the FIR and the grant of bail
J
Human liberty and the role of courts
K
Conclusion
A. The appeal
1. While invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), the
appellant sought three substantive reliefs:
(i)
A writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally
arrested and wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer
("SHO") at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in
Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report1 ("FIR")
registered on 5 May 2018 under Sections 306 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") in spite of an earlier closure
report which was accepted by the Magistrate;
(ii)
The quashing of the above-mentioned FIR; and
(iii)
The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the
appellant had been arrested.
These three reliefs2 are reflected in prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the
petition before the High Court.
1
CR No. 0059 of 2018
2 (a) Issue a writ of habeas corpus and/or any other similar writ, order and direction
of like nature, directing the Respondents to produce the Petitioner who has been
illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Respondent No. 2 in relation to
FIR, being C.R. No. 0059 of 2018 dated 5 May 2018, registered at Alibaug Police
Station, Raigad, under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
despite a closure report being filed;
(b)
Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other similar writ, order and direction of
like nature, quashing the FIR, being C.R. No. 0059 of 2018, dated 5 May 2018,
registered at Alibaug Police Station, Raigad, under Sections 306 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860;
(c)
Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other similar writ, order and direction of like
nature, quashing and/or setting-aside the arrest memo, if any, on the basis of
which the Respondents have wrongfully and illegally arrested the Petitioner;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
2. Pending the disposal of the petition, by an interim application in
the proceedings3, the appellant sought his release from custody and a
stay of all further proceedings including the investigation in pursuance of
the FIR.
3. A Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 9
November 2020, noted that prayer (a) by which a writ of habeas corpus
was sought was not pressed. The High Court posted the hearing of the
petition for considering the prayer for quashing of the FIR on 10 December
2020. It declined to accede to the prayer for the grant of bail, placing
reliance on a decision of this Court in State of Telangana vs Habib
Abdullah Jeelani4 ("Habib Jeelani"). The High Court was of the view
that the prayers for interim relief proceeded on the premise that the
appellant had been illegally detained and since he was in judicial custody,
it would not entertain the request for bail or for stay of the investigation
in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The High Court held that
since the appellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him to avail of
the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. The High Court declined
prima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that the allegations
in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose the commission of an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC. That is how the case has come to
this Court. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of his interim prayer
for the grant of bail.
B. The parties, the FIR and 'A' Summary
4. The appellant is the Editor-in-Chief of an English television news
channel, Republic TV. He is also the Managing Director of ARG Outlier
Media Asianet News Private Limited which owns and operates a Hindi
television news channel by the name of R Bharat. The appellant anchors
shows on both channels.
5. The appellant was arrested on 4 November 2020 in connection
3 (a)
Pending final hearing and disposal of the captioned writ petition, this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner in FIR No. 59 of 2018 and direct
the Respondents and/or each of them to immediately release the Petitioner from
illegal detention and wrongful custody and/or arrest by the Respondents in view
of detailed submissions made herein above, to meet the ends of justice.
(b)
Pending the final hearing and disposal of the captioned writ petition, this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the investigation in
FIR No. 59 of 2018, with respect to the Petitioner.
4
(2017) 2 SCC 779
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
with FIR 59 of 2018 which was registered at Alibaug Police Station
under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.
6. The genesis of the FIR can be traced back to December 2016,
when a company by the name of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited
("ARG") awarded a contract for civil and interior work to another
company, Concorde Design Private Limited ("CDPL") which was owned
substantially by Anvay Naik (the "deceased").
7. The FIR was registered on 5 May 2018 on the complaint of
Akshyata Anvay Naik (the "informant"), the spouse of the deceased
who is alleged to have committed suicide. The contents of the FIR read
thus:
"12. First Information contents:
Facts : I Smt. Akshata Anvay Naik Age 48 yeas, occupation
housewife, residing at 901, Rishabh Tower, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Elphistone West, Mumbai-25 personally remain present and state
in writing that my mobile No. 8169947073, I am residing at the
abovementioned address with my deceased Anvay Madhukar
Naik, daughter Adnya Naik together. My husband is having
company owned under name and dstype as Concorde Design and
we were having our livelihood by doing business of architecture
interior designing and engineering consultancy. My husband Anvay
Madhukar Naik is having his native place at Village Kavir, Tai.
Alibaug and at the said place my mother in law Kumud Madhukar
Naik is residing . therefore my husband used to visit in between to
my mother in law at Village Kavir Tai. Alibag . As also my husband
used to bring my mother in law Kumud Naik in between with us at
Mumbai. My husband for last two years was having pressure as
he did not received the money of work carried out by him and he
continuously used to inform me and therefore I also called in the
office of Amav Gosmani and asked his accountant for payment of
money of work done by us. As also contacted to other businessman
also and informed that my husband is in great difficulty and as the
money is not received he is under great mental pressure. Yesterday
on 04.05.2018 at 3.45 pm in afternoon my husband Anvay
Madhukar Naik and my mother in law Kumud Madhukar Naik
left from our house at Mumbai and came at Alibag Kavir. At evening
7.30 I called on the mobile No. 9763437648 of my mother in law
and when enquired as to whether they have reached at our farm
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
909
house at Kavir Ali bag or otherwise when my mother in law
informed me that she and my husband reached and as care taker
aaji gone out she will required to carry out all the work in the
house. Today on 05.05.2018 at morning 9.30 am when I and my
daughter Adnya were at our house at Mumbai Shri Aruni Patil
residing at Dadar Hindu Colony, Mumbai called my daughter Adnya
on her mobile that my mother in law Kumud Naik expired.
Therefore I and my daughter Adnya sister Mrs. Manjusha Durgesh
Vaingankar, and her daughter Shreya Vaingankar started coming
to Alibag through our own vehicle. After we reached at Wadkhal
I called on mobile of friend of my husband Shri Akshit Lakhani
and enquired about my husband when he informed that my husband
Anvay Madhukar Naik has also committed suicide . When we
reached at our farm house at Kavir at around 2.15 pm in afternoon
there was huge crowd of public and police were gathered.
Therefore when we went inside and saw that my mother in law
Kumud Naik was lying on bed near dining room. Thereafter from
stair case when we went on upper floor saw that my husband
Anvay Madhukar Naik was lying and one thread was hanged on
iron pipe of house. Thereafter police enquired with us and informed
us about the said incident. Thereafter only informed that they were
taking my husband Anvay Madhukar Naik and mother in law
Kumud Madhukar Naik to Civil Hospital Alibag. When we were
present in the said house police shown us note written by my
husband Anvay Madhukar Naik in his own handwriting in English(
suicide note). The handwriting in the said note is his handwriting
and the signature on it is also of his only and l identify the same. In
the said note he has written in English as 3) Suicide Note, 4) we
are committing suicide due to following 5) our (Concorde designs
Pvt Ltd) 6) We both directors I) Mr. Anvay M. Naik 2) Kumud
M. Naik, 7) Money is stuck and following owners of respected
companies are not paying our legitimate dues 8) Mr. Amab
Goswami ARG Outlier of Republic TV, not paid 83 lacs for
Bombay Dyeing Studio project, 9) Feroz Shaikh Icaswt X /
Skimedia not paid our 400 lacs in Laxmi, 3rd and 4th floor idea
Square project in Andheri 10) Mr. Niteish Sarda owner of smart
works Magarpattaq and Baner Project (55 Lacs pending) 11) kindly
collect money from them and held them responsible for our death
and pay to creditors 12) I and my mother are directors in Concorde
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
India company and following persons have till now not paid me
money of work done by me. In which it is written as Arnab Goswami
ARV Outlife Of Republic TV having Rs.83 Lac of work done, 2)
Firoz Khan having 4 crores of work done, 3) Nitesh Sarda 55 lacs
of work done should be deposited and should be held responsible
for my death and getting the same deposited and pay the dues of
public. With regard to the contents written in the said note my
husband Anvay Madhukar Naik had continuously informed me
for last one or two years. While he used to tell me he was under
immense pressure. Therefore I am having lawful complaint
against. Arnab Goswami, 2. Firoz Khan, 3. Nilesh Sarda the persons
whose names written in said suicide note by my husband Anvay
Madhukar Naik that the abovementioned amount was due from
them and even after continuously demanding the said amount have
not paid the said amount and therefore my husband was under
great pressure therefore my husband Anvay Naik Age 53 years
and my mother in law Kumud Madhukar Naik died and the
information of such contents was registered and PI Shri Warade
is investigating the said offence.
The FIR records thus:
(i)
The appellant (who owns the company ARG) had not paid
an amount of Rs. 83 lacs for the Bombay Dyeing Studio
project. In addition, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.
4 crores from Feroz Shaikh and Rs. 55 lacs from Nitesh
Sarda (who are the appellants in the connected Criminal
Appeals);
(ii)
The spouse of the informant had not received payment for
the work which was carried out by him, as a result of which
he was under mental pressure and that he committed suicide
by hanging on 5 May 2018;
(iii)
There is a suicide note' holding the above three individuals
responsible; and
(iv)
The informant was informed on 5 May 2018, when she and
her daughter were at their residence at Mumbai, that her
mother-in-law Kumud Naik had died at their Alibaug
residence. On the way to Alibaug, she was informed that her
husband had committed suicide. On reaching the house at
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
Alibaug, she found the body of her mother-in-law lying on a
bed and that her spouse had committed suicide by hanging.
8. On 6 May 2018, officers from the Alibaug Police Station visited
ARG's office in Mumbai and served three notices under Section 91 of
the CrPC. On 7 and 8 May 2018, two representatives of ARG visited
Alibaug Police Station where they claim to have handed over the
information which was sought by the police in their notices under Section
91. On 22 May 2018, the appellant submitted a representation to the
notice under Section 91 following which on 30 May 2018 and 28 June
2018, the statements of the Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary
of ARG were recorded.
9. On 16 April 2019, the SHO at Alibaug Police Station filed a
report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate ("CJM") for an 'A'
summary. The CJM passed an order accepting the report and granted an
'A' summary. The meaning and import of an A' summary is reflected in
Para 219 (3) of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959. An 'A' Summary
indicates a case where an offence has been committed but it is undetected,
in that there is no clue about the culprits or the property, or where the
accused is known but there is no evidence to justify their being sent up to
the Magistrate for trial. Para 219 (3) of the Bombay Police Manual reads
thus:
"RULE 219 (3) OF BOMBAY POLICE MANUAL
(3) The final report should be written up carefully by the officers
incharge of the Police Station personally and should be
accompanied by all the case papers numbered and indexed
methodically. If the accused has been released on bail, the
Magistrate should be requested to cancel the bail bond. He should
also be requested to pass orders regarding the disposal of property
attached, unless any of the articles, e.g., blood stained clothes, are
required for further use in true but undetected cases. A request
should also be made to the Magistrate to classify the case and to
issue an appropriate summary of his order, viz:-
"A" True. undetected (where there is no clue whatsoever about
the culprits or property or where the accused in known but there
is no evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate (for
trial).
"B" Maliciously false.
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
"C" Neither true nor false, e.g., due to mistake to fact or being of
a civil nature.
"Non-cognizable" Police investigation reveals commission of only
non-cognizable offence."
10. Following the 'A' summary, there was an exchange of
correspondence between ARG and the informant. ARG by their letter
dated 11 June 2019, addressed to CDPL, the informant and her daughter,
indicated that several meetings had been held in the past between them
during the course of which ARG had sought indemnities from CDPL
against any future claims. In its letter, ARG stated that it would be
transferring a sum of Rs. 39.01 lacs into CDPL's last known bank account
against an indemnity for future claims by the creditors or lenders of CDPL.
In response, on 15 June 2019, the informant addressed a communication
to ARG stating that out of a total billed amount of Rs. 6.45 crores, an
amount of Rs. 5.75 crores had been received from ARG, and after
adjustment of an amount of Rs. 70.39 lacs towards deductions made
from the bill, an amount of Rs. 88.02 lacs was due and payable. On 6
November 2019, ARG addressed another letter to the informant recording
the closure of the police investigation and reiterating its readiness to pay
an amount of Rs.39.01 lacs subject to due authorisation. The matter
appears to have rested there until a flurry of developments took place in
the month of April 2020.
C. Previous proceedings against the appellant
11. During the course of the present proceedings, the appellant
has adverted to proceedings initiated against him previously by the State
of Maharashtra, in order to support his case that the arrest is vitiated by
malice in fact.
12. On 16 April 2020, a broadcast took place on Republic TV,
followed by a broadcast on Republic Bharat on 21 April 2020 in relation
to an incident which took place in Gadchinchle village of Palghar district
in Maharashtra. During the course of this incident on 16 April 2020,
three persons, including two Sadhus, were brutally killed by a mob,
allegedly in the presence of the police and forest guard personnel.
According to the appellant, on his news show titled "Poochta hai Bharat"
on 21 April 2020, he had raised issues in relation to the allegedly tardy
investigation of the incident by the police.
13. As this Court noticed in a judgment dated 19 May 2020, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
broadcasts led to the lodging of multiple FIRs and criminal complaints
against the appellant in the States of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand as well as in the Union
Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The content of the FIRs was similar,
almost identical. In the State of Maharashtra, an FIR was lodged at
Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, details of which were as follows:
"Maharashtra
FIR No. 238 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police
Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, under Sections
153, 153-A, 153-B,295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117
of the Indian Penal Code 1860."
Apart from the above FIR, fourteen other FIRs and complaints
were lodged against the appellant in relation to his broadcasts.
14. The appellant moved this Court in proceedings under Article
32 of the Constitution5 challenging the registration of these FIRs. By an
interim order dated 24 April 2020, the FIR which had been lodged at
Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City was transferred to NM Joshi
Marg Police Station, Mumbai and was renumbered as FIR 164 of 2020.
Another FIR, FIR 137 of 2020, was registered against the appellant on 2
May 2020 at the Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai. FIR 137 of 2020 was
filed against the appellant due to a telecast which took place on 29 April
2020 on the appellant's new channels, in which the appellant referred to
a gathering of migrant workers at the Bandra Railway station during the
Covid-19 pandemic, and attempted to connect a place of religious worship
with this gathering. The appellant filed another petition under Article 32
of the Constitution6, challenging the registration of FIR 137 of 2020.
15.