No immediate relief for Arnab Goswami, Bombay HC reserves order on pleas for release

HC clarifies pendency of petition would not stop Goswami from approaching a sessions court for bail and that if such an application is filed, ‘it should be decided within 4 days’.

Arnab Goswami being arrested by Mumbai Police | Republic TV screen grab

New Delhi: The Bombay High Court Saturday reserved its order on the habeas corpus petition and a bail application filed by Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in a 2018 abetment of suicide case against him. 

After a six-hour-long marathon hearing, the bench comprising Justices S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik said that it needed to consider the compilations and submissions made to them by all the parties. 

The court also refused to pass an order immediately to grant interim bail to Goswami today. It, however, clarified that the pendency of this petition would not stop Goswami from approaching the sessions court for bail and that if such an application is filed, “it should be decided within 4 days”.

The court assured Goswami’s counsel, senior advocate Harish Salve, that it will pronounce its order sometime in the coming week, as early as possible. 

The case involves the suicide of 53-year-old architect Anvay Naik, and his mother Kumud. The duo left behind a suicide note. An FIR was registered on the basis of the note, against the anchor and two others — Feroz Shaikh of IcastX/Skimedia, a media services firm, and Niteesh Sarda of Smartwork, which provides “flexible workspaces” — in Alibaug, a city in Raigad district near Mumbai, where the incident took place. The case was closed by Raigad police in April 2019, apparently due to lack of evidence.

In May this year, however, the Maharashtra home ministry announced a fresh investigation in the case on a complaint filed by Naik’s daughter, Adnya. Goswami was then arrested by the Maharashtra police Wednesday, and was sent to 14-day judicial custody the same day by the chief judicial magistrate of the Alibaug trial court. 

In his plea in the Bombay High Court, Goswami has now questioned the police for re-investigating the case given that a closure report filed in 2019 was accepted by the magistrate. He also said that the police did not take the court’s prior permission to re-investigate the case. He has therefore challenged his arrest as “illegal”. 

During the hearing Friday, Salve asserted that the state government was acting out of malice. Salve went on to count the number of FIRs already registered against Goswami in the state.

Salve had also submitted that there was no relationship between Goswami and Naik. Their relationship was purely commercial, he said.

“The conduct for abetment to suicide must be direct and proximate. The magistrate had rightly accepted the closure report of the police,” he added.

The court had finished hearing Goswami’s side Friday, and posted the matter for Saturday to hear all the other parties. 

Victim also has a right to get fair probe

Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, Saturday submitted that Goswami was not under “unlawful custody”, but was in custody on the basis of an order passed by the magistrate. He said that any allegations of malice are also therefore irrelevant, since the order of remand was passed by the magistrate. 

Desai also made a fervent plea for securing the rights of the victim. He asserted that the victim also has a fundamental right to seek a fair investigation. He told the court that Adnya Naik has been knocking on doors demanding justice since February, and that the latter came to know about the closure report only through Twitter. 

Desai also contended that if a suicide note names someone, then the matter needs to be investigated. He further challenged the submissions that a fresh investigation could not have been started in the case without express permission from the court. 

Desai cited the difference between the different types of summary reports filed in a case. An ‘A’ summary case is when the magistrate classifies the case as genuine, but not detected, i.e. the investigation does not lead to collection of enough evidence. Cases under ‘B’ summary are the ones in which there is no evidence against the accused and ‘C’ summary cases are ones which were filed due to a mistake of fact.

In Goswami’s case, ‘A’ summary was filed.

Relying on this, Desai said that ‘A’ summary reflects incomplete investigation, and that accepting Goswami’s argument would act as an impediment for the police to nab the accused. 

Desai also submitted that the right remedy for Goswami is filing a bail application, and not a habeas corpus petition. 

Meanwhile, senior advocate Sirish Gupte, appearing for the victim’s family, submitted that Naik’s wife was not informed about the closure of the case. He told the court that she came to know about it through the media, months later. 

Gupte also questioned the “urgency” shown for hearing Goswami’s case, saying, “During the time of Covid-19, several petitions are not being heard by the court”.

This prompted the court to clarify that the special Saturday sitting was held on the basis of “consensus” between all parties. 

Appearing on behalf of Mumbai Police commissioner Parambir Singh, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, demanded that Singh’s name be deleted from the list of respondents in the case. He submitted that the case is by the Raigad police and not the Mumbai Police. He, therefore, asserted that the Mumbai police commissioner should not have been made a party in the case in his personal capacity. 

Demand for action against cops who did a ‘miserable job’

During the hearing Saturday, the court also took up the petition filed by Sarda, who is one of the co-accused in the case. Sarda has also sought quashing of the FIR. 

Among other things, Sarda objected to the IPC provision on “common intention” being applied to the case. He submitted that the allegations are against three different people, with different businesses. He asserted that he has been tagged along with Goswami, who is a stranger to him. 

Sarda cited case laws in which the high court also granted bail to the accused, instead of going to the lower courts first. 

The third accused, Feroze Shaikh, also made similar submissions, asserting that the Maharashtra police could not have begun fresh investigation without seeking permission from the court. 

Further, Naik’s daughter, Adnya Naik, demanded action against officers who, she said, did a “miserable job” while conducting the probe in the case earlier. She also alleged that the magistrate accepted the closure report without giving her a notice.

On Adnya Naik’s petition for inquiry against police officers who filed the closure report in the case, the court issued a notice to the Maharashtra government.