Arnab Case

Arnab Goswami Case
Facts of the case
Arnab Manorjan Goswami(editor in chief of Republic TV and managing director of ARG Outlier
Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd.) is the appellant in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5598 of 2020).
In this case, the appellant majorly sought 3 reliefs from the Hon’ble Bombay High Court for the
alleged crime of abetment to suicide (Section 306 of IPC) read with section 34 of IPC because
the appellant was arrested on 4 November 2020 in connection with FIR 59 of 2018 which was
registered at Alibaug Police Station under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. The 3 reliefs sought
from the Bombay HC were-
(i) A writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained
by the Station House Officer (―SHO‖) at Alibaug PoliceStation in the district of Raigad in
Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report1 (―FIR‖) registered on 5 May 2018 under
Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (―IPC‖) in spite of an earlier closure report
which was accepted by the Magistrate;
(ii) The quashing of the above-mentioned FIR; and
(iii) The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the appellant had been arrested.
The origin of the FIR can be traced back to the year December 2016 when appelant’s company
ARG Outlier Media Private Limited (―ARG‖) awarded a contract for civil and interior work to
another company, Concorde Design Private Limited (―CDPL‖) which was owned substantially
by Anvay Naik (the―deceased‖).
The FIR was registered on 5 May 2018 on the complaint of Akshyata Anvay Naik (the
―informant‖), the spouse of the deceased who is alleged to have committed suicide. In the FIR,
was mentioned a suicide note that held three individuals responsible for the abetment of suicide.
Those individuals were 1.Arnab Goswami, 2. Firoz Khan, 3. Nilesh Sarda. According to the FIR
they were the defaulter of the deceased company of interior designing and had some amount to
be paid to the decease. Due to not getting the amount Deceased was in great mental pressure that
led to his act of sucide.
The appellant (who owns the company ARG) had not paid an amount of Rs. 83 lacs for the
Bombay Dyeing Studio project. In addition, there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 4 crores
from Feroz Shaikh and Rs. 55 lacs from Nitesh Sarda (who are the appellants in the connected
Criminal Appeals.)
On 6 May 2018, officers from the Alibaug Police Station visited ARG‘s office in Mumbai and
served three notices under Section 91 of the CrPC. On 7 and 8 May 2018, two representatives of
ARG visited Alibaug Police Station where they claim to have handed over the information which
was sought by the police in their notices under Section 91. On 22 May 2018, the appellant
submitted a representation to the notice under Section 91 following which on 30 May 2018 and
28 June 2018, the statements of the Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of ARG
were recorded.
On 16 April 2019, the SHO at Alibaug Police Station filed a report in the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate (―CJM‖) for an ‗A‘ summary. The CJM passed an order accepting the
report and granted an ‗A‘ summary. The meaning and import of an ‘A’ summary is reflected in
Para 219 (3) of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959. An ‘A’ Summary indicates a case where an
offence has been committed but it is undetected, in that there is no clue about the culprits or the
property, or where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify their being sent up to
the Magistrate for trial.
Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the appellant in the Hon’ble Supreme Court because
he was denied the bail in the said FIR by the Bombay High Court on the ground that no case has
been made out for the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction and that the appellant had an
alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC.
Arguments by the counsel
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appelant, Mr. Harish N Salve contended that the arrest of the
appellant is rooted in malice in fact and it is evident from the manner in which the appellant as
the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV and R Bharat has been targeted for his news broadcasts
criticizing the Maharashtra government and the Maharashtra police. Further he claimed that the
acceptance of the police report and the issuance of an ‘A’ summary on 16 April 2019, the
reinvestigation which has been ordered at the behest of the Home Minister of the State of
Maharashtra is ultra vires. Further, in the absence of the specific permission of the CJM, it was
not open to the State to conduct a reinvestigation. Lastly he said the allegations contained in the
FIR, read as they stand, do not establish an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
IPC.
Submissions from the side of the respondent were filed by Mr. Amit Desai appearing on behalf
of second respondant, Mr. Kapil Sibal senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent
and Mr. CU Singh appearing on behalf of fifth respondent.
They contended that The High Court declined to express a prima facie view on the issue of mala
fides since an opportunity was being granted to the State to file its counter. Similarly, the issue as
to whether the FIR is liable to be quashed would be taken up at the final hearing on 10 December
2020 and hence the High Court has correctly refrained from expressing a prima facie view.
Further, relying on the case of Praveen Pradhan vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors.1 The counsel
argued that instigation to commit suicide has to be gathered from the circumstances of a
particular case. Hence, while there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may
have direct nexus to suicide, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances to determine
whether they were of a nature which created a situation in which a person felt totally frustrated
and ended up committing suicide.
Further argument put forth by the respondant’s counsel was that, a hierarchy of courts is
provided for to consider an application for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the present
case, there was no valid basis to by-pass that hierarchy in order to grant relief to the appellant.
They contended in regards to prayer (a) that Writ Petition for the grant of a writ of Habeas
Corpus was not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant had been arrested and
committed to judicial custody, and the interim application for his release on bail was only in the
context of the prayer for Habeas Corpus.
Another point of defence that was put forth by the learned counsel was that even when ‘A’
Summary has been accepted in terms of Para 219(3) of the Bombay Police Manual, there is no
restraint on a further investigation being carried out by the Investigating Officer under Section
1
(2012) 9 SCC 734
173(8) of the CrPC. An ‘A’ summary postulates that there was no completed investigation. For
this the counsel relied on the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat2.
On the same vein as the submission of learned counsel for the second respondent, senior counsel
for fifth and first respondent submitted their respective arguments.
2
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1346

Arnab Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnab Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnab Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnab Goswami Case

Facts of the case

(ii) The quashing of the above-mentioned FIR; and

Arguments by the counsel

You might also like