Updated: November 10, 2020 3:35:57 am
On Monday, the Bombay HC rejected requests from Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami and two other people for provisional bail in an alleged suicide accessory case registered against them in 2018 (File photo).
On Monday, the Mumbai High Court rejected requests from Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami and two others for provisional bail in an alleged complicity in the suicide case recorded against him in 2018, saying that they could submit applications for bail to a court of sessions to obtain a decision. within four days.
Goswami, Feroze Shaikh and Nitish Sarda approached the session court in Alibag and their requests for bail indicated that they were willing to cooperate with the police. The court asked the defense attorneys to provide copies of the bail requests to the prosecution so that the prosecution could file a response.
Meanwhile, following an order last Friday from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the three men are being interrogated by the police in the Central Jail of Taloja, where they are currently housed.
They will be interrogated daily for three hours; the CJM court accepted the police request for permission to question them. The police had to ask the court for permission because they had not been granted custody of the three men.
Goswami, Shaikh and Sarda were arrested on November 4 after Raigad police reopened a case involving the deaths of interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik at their home in Alibag in May 2018. According to the police, The Naiks committed suicide for alleged failure to pay channel fees from Goswami and the other two men’s companies.
In the High Court, the court of judges SS Shinde and MS Karnik rejected the allegations of bail of the three defendants, saying that “no case has been made for the release of the applicant under extraordinary jurisdiction.”
The court said its observations were of a “prima facie nature” and the rejection of applications for provisional bond “should not be construed as an impediment.”
He said his earlier instruction that the defendant was free to request bail under Section 439 of the CrPC before the session court was unaffected and that the request should be heard and resolved “quickly” within four days of the presentation.
Leading lawyers Harish Salve and Aabad Ponda, representing Goswami, had requested his provisional release, arguing that his arrest was “completely illegal”.
Goswami’s statement had established that the closing report on the FIR in the case was filed in 2019, which was accepted by the magistrate on the same day, and a summary report was presented. Ponda said that it was not contested in any court nor was there any request for protest by the informant and no recourse was exercised.
The court said it had examined the registered documents and noted that prior to conducting the investigation, the magistrate was hinted at further investigation, and there was ‘look and file’ support. He said that the statements under Section 164 of the CrPC were recorded after obtaining permission from the CJM.
“In our opinion, the further investigation cannot be classified as illegal” or “without seeking the permission of the magistrate,” he said.
The judges said they “had no doubt” that the state government can “always” direct an additional investigation to interested police officers, as was done in the present case.
Accepting State Government Submissions through Lead Counsel Amit Desai, the Court said: “The continued persuasion of the State Government by the whistleblower to resolve his grievance and the IO in question, after intimidating the magistrate, begins the investigation Additionally, it cannot be said to be irregular or illegal by any stretch of the imagination. “
“The rights of the victims are as important as the rights of the accused. We cannot accept the petitioner’s argument that there can be no further investigation when the magistrate’s order accepting summary ‘A’ was without prior notice and without giving the informant the opportunity to present the protest petition, ”he said.
“The informant’s prayer for further investigation could not have been ignored by the respondent State and its officials when, according to the allegations in the FIR, two of her relatives committed suicide due to the alleged acts of the accused,” he said.
On Salve’s presentation that the allegations in the FIR did not reveal the alleged crime against Goswami, the court said: “The presentation does not deserve consideration at this stage when the investigation is in progress and the alleged suicide note recovered by the Investigating Officer mention the name of the petitioner. “
The court will hear Goswami’s main plea for annulment of the FIRs and will continue the investigation, along with pleas from two others, on December 10.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
