The Mumbai High Court on Saturday reserved its order on an interim bond statement filed by Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami in connection with a 2018 suicide complicity case. Living law reported. Goswami was arrested on Wednesday.
It is alleged that Goswami and two other people, Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda, did not pay the money they owed to an interior designer named Anvay Naik, managing director of Concorde Designs Private Limited. Naik and his mother were found dead at their home in the village of Kavir, near Mumbai, in 2018. A suicide note said that Goswami, Shaikh and Sarda had not paid fees worth 5.4 million rupees.
The Republic TV presenter was arrested Wednesday morning at his Lower Parel residence in Mumbai and placed in judicial custody for 14 days. Goswami filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, challenging his “illegal arrest”. He sought immediate release and instructions to annul the first information report filed against him in 2018.
A bench of SS Shinde and MS Karnik judges refused to approve an immediate order on the matter, saying they needed time to consider the compilations and submissions made by the parties in the case.
However, the court said the processing of Goswami’s guilty plea does not prevent him from going to the session court to request bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. “If such a request is brought, it must be decided within four days,” the court said.
The High Court observed that the hierarchy of the courts should not be altered, according to Bar and bench. “Don’t you think that with [other] Available remedies, if we grant the appeal, then will everyone go to Superior Court? asked the bank. “It will send the wrong signal that even though Section 439 is there, then why be under a court order? It will also undermine the authority of the lower courts. ”
During the hearing, lead counsel Harish Salve, who appeared on behalf of Goswami, argued that the powers of a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution are on par with the powers of the Supreme Court under article 32. The former empowers the higher courts to write to any person or authority, including the government in relevant cases, while article 32 establishes the provision according to which people can request redress for the violation of their fundamental rights.
But attorney Amit Desai, who appeared for the Maharashtra government, objected to the High Court directly considering the statement, stating that this was not an “extraordinary case” in which it was necessary to break the hierarchy of the courts. “This is not an appropriate case for granting provisional measures,” he said. “They have recourse to the court of first instance. They can obtain a bond when the court of first instance deems it appropriate. “
He said that if the court considers Goswami’s statement, it would open “a flood gate of applications” similar to this one. Desai further stated that the proper procedure has been followed to restart the investigation into the allegations against Goswami.
The High Court heard both parties, reserved its orders on the matter, and gave the parties four weeks to submit their responses. He had also refused to provide temporary relief to Goswami on Thursday and Friday.
In his petition, Goswami claimed that his arrest was a “witch hunt” and a vendetta policy against him and Republic TV. He also called it “an act of revenge and revenge” for the channel’s news coverage.
“It is an established principle of the law that to attract the ingredients of complicity, the intention of the accused to help or instigate or incite the deceased to commit suicide is necessary,” the petition adds. “In the case at hand, it cannot be said, without imagination, that the petitioner intended to help, instigate or incite the deceased to commit suicide. Simply because a person has been named in the suicide note, it cannot be concluded that he is a criminal under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. “
.
