Courts must ensure that criminal law is not used to selectively harass citizens, the Supreme Court said on Friday, explaining the reasoning behind its Nov. 11 ruling granting interim bail to Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab. Goswami, in an incitement to the suicide case. .
When issuing the verdict, Judge DY Chandrachud also explained that his decision was influenced by a prima facie reading of the FIR, which did not establish his role in the suicide, and also a chain of events that led to the suspicion that the State was pointing at a citizen. Judge Indira Banerjee was the other judge on the stand.
Both the promptness with which the higher court heard the case, and the judgment itself, were subject to some criticism when it was delivered, with several high-level lawyers and experts saying the same benchmark is not being applied to other cases. .
In its ruling, the court was also harsh with the Bombay high court, saying that it was “clearly of the opinion that by failing to make even a prima facie assessment of the FIR, the high court abdicated its constitutional duty as protector of the freedom . ”
He added that “the doors of this court cannot be closed to a citizen who can establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being armed to use the force of criminal law. The deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many ”.
The decision came in an appeal by Goswami and two other people against a November 9 order from the Bombay HC declining bail. On November 11, this court ordered the release of all defendants on bail and recorded the reasons in a 55-page sentence issued on Friday.
The accusation against the trio was that they owed sums of money ranging from ₹ 55 lakh to ₹ 4 crore to designer Anvay Naik for professional services. Naik committed suicide in May 2018 and left a suicide note naming the three people. Goswami’s company owed Naik 83 lakh. The Bombay High Court had previously denied Goswami and the others provisional bond.
The CV said in its ruling that “the appellants are residents of India and do not represent a flight risk … There is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or witnesses. Taking these factors into account, the order of November 11 provided for the appellants’ bail ”.
The remarks come ahead of a crucial hearing in the Bombay high court that will consider Goswami’s petition to annul the FIR on December 10. Legal experts said the SC’s observation of the FIR in its judgment is sure to weigh in the higher court.
Lead attorney Sanjay Hegde said: “The courts do not normally make such observations. But this was a matter in which detailed arguments were made. The observation of the Court will certainly have a substantial influence on the Supreme Court, although the justices have been careful to say that this opinion is prima facie. The higher court may not necessarily be guided by this point of view if the prosecution can present evidence. However, I prefer to see this ruling in a broader context where the bond is seen as a matter of law and not as indulgence by the courts. “
Goswami, through his lawyer, leading advocate Harish Salve, maintained that the state was attacking him for criticizing the Maharashtra government and state police in their televised debates. Salve said that Goswami was arrested on November 4 despite the fact that the investigation in this case ended in April 2019 when a closing report was presented to the trial judge. It was on October 15 that the police communicated their decision to re-investigate the FIR in the corresponding court, he said.
The Bombay HC on 9 November refused to grant Goswami bail.
Linking bail with personal freedom, the Supreme Court court said that higher courts should not be excluded from exercising power under article 226 when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of personal freedom in excess of state power.
.
