Arnab Goswami Arrest: Legal or Illegal?

Arnab Goswami Arrest: Legal or Illegal?

In a case of suspected abetment to suicide, dating back to 2018 and involving Anvay Naik, a Mumbai-based interior designer, and his mother Kumud Naik, Arnab Goswami was arrested on 4 November. Naik and his mother were found dead on 5 August 2018 and he accused Goswami and two others of failing to pay his dues in a suicide note discovered on spot. The case was apparently closed by Raigad Police in April 2019 due to a lack of evidence.

a. In May this year, in connection with the suicide of architect-interior designer Anvay Naik and Naik's mother over alleged non-payment of dues by Republic TV in 2018, he was booked under Section 306 (Suicide Abetment) and 34 (Common Intent) of the IPC. However, the Maharashtra home ministry announced a fresh investigation in the case of a complaint filed by Naik’s daughter, Adnya. After his arrest, Goswami was sent to 14-day judicial custody the same day by the chief judicial magistrate of the Alibaug Trial Court. He filed a plea with Bombay High Court but after a six-hour-long marathon hearing, the High Court refused to grant Goswami interim bail.

b. Naik left a suicide note, in which he blamed Goswami, Feroze Mohammed Shaikh, and Nitesh Sarda for his act. Goswami was brought before the magistrate court of the Alibaug, where he and his counsel, Gaurav Parkar, claimed that the police assaulted Goswami. The court then ordered Goswami to be taken to the civil hospital for a medical check-up.

c. Later in the evening, he was taken back to court. After perusing the medical report, the court noted in the order that the claims of physical abuse were false and that the accused's hand only had slight scratches. The Alibaug police sought custody of Goswami for fourteen days for investigation. In addition, Shaikh and Sarda were presented in court and sent to judicial custody until 18 November.

d. Advocate Ponda, however, objected to the remand petition and said that there was a vendetta against Goswami. The whole arrest, he said, was unconstitutional. According to him, Arnab was arrested on the basis of an investigation that was entirely unconstitutional. This is not a situation in which he could have been rounded up in this way, as if he were a hardened criminal.

e. He said, A closure report had been filed in this case and hence the delayed police action smacks of malafide. The prosecution argued that Goswami and the other two accused did not cooperate with the probe.

f. Goswami, on November 2, filed a petition in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the FIR in the case. Senior Lawyer Harish Salve, arguing for the release of Arnab, said that no permission had been taken by the police to reopen the 2018 Anvay Naik suicide case in which Arnab was detained, adding 'the arrest is illegal' according to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order.

g. The Maharashtra Government, on the other hand, justified the 'arrest' of Arnab, saying that if 'illegal arrest resulted in judicial remand,' arrest questioning is issue has no connection. It also maintained that the government has the power to direct investigation, noting that Arnab has not challenged the remand order. The two-judge bench comprising Justices S S Shinde and M S Karnik ordered that Arnab could request bail from the court of sessions, which had to be settled in four days. On 11 November 2020, the Supreme Court granted bail to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and two others charged in a 2018 suicide case.

h. "We maintain that the High Court was wrong not to grant bail, Judges DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee said on the bench. The defendants were discharged on a bond of Rs 50,000 each.

The Police were directed to release the accused immediately.

i. The question of when the investigation should have begun is up for discussion. If there are significant problems to be dealt with, then no temporary relief is given. If the High Court thought there were serious issues for consideration, why no provisional release was given to him. Goswami and two other persons, Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda, had challenged the order of the Bombay High Court to reject their top court interim bail plea. The plea for interim release by Shaikh and Sarda has also been approved.

j. The accused are alleged to have refused to pay money they owed to an interior designer called Anvay Naik, Concorde Designs Private Limited's managing director. In 2018, Naik and his mother were found dead in their home near Mumbai in Kavir village. The suicide note claimed that Goswami, Shaikh, and Sarda did not pay dues amounting to Rs 5.4 crore. Harish Salve, appearing on behalf of Arnab said that he was a target of collateral damage.

k. Documents indicate that the sum was paid to all vendors by the accused. For the last seven years, Concorde designs have been financially stressed. He also referred to the finding of the Alibaug court that Goswami's arrest seemed to be illegal. "A prima facie relation can not be identified between the accused and suicide," he said. "He should have been released on bail by the court. That hadn't been to be. The plea, therefore, was not merely for quashing the FIR.

l. The main question asked by the Supreme court was that if a matter of non-payment of dues was there and suicide was committed, then would it mean abatement to suicide. Another question was whether there was a direct incitement to suicide. Therefore, it was held that it would be a travesty of justice if someone is denied bail for non-payment of dues. The Supreme Court asked the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty.

BY-

Raksha Singhal