Bombay High Court Observes That: “If We Grant Remedy, Then Everyone Will Come To The High Court”, The Court Refused To Grant Interim Bail In Arnab Goswami Pleas
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court today reserved its order in the habeas corpus and bail pleas filed by Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in connection with the abetment to suicide case he is currently in judicial custody for.
The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik heard the matter this on a Saturday after obtaining the consent of the parties yesterday.
The Court refused to grant Goswami interim bail, noting that its order should not be construed as an impediment to the journalist to approach the Sessions Court for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). If such lower court is approached for bail, it shall decide the matter within four days, the High Court further held.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai appeared for the State. Inter alia, he argued against the High Court directly entertaining the plea to release Goswami, asserting that the hierarchy of courts should not be disrupted unless there are extraordinary circumstances. He asserted,
“This is not a fit case for grant of interim relief. They have remedy before the trial court. They may get bail when if the trial court deems it fit. But to exercise this jurisdiction will lead to flood gate of applications.”
Desai added that he does not want to comment on the allegations of malice made by Goswami, since the matter is sub juice. He further submitted that the proper procedure has been followed to restart the investigation.
The Court today also heard submissions made for the other two persons accused in the case. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal argued for the release of Nitesh Sarda, and Advocate Nikhil Mengde made allied submissions for Feroze Shaik.
During Aggarwal’s arguments, the Court asked out loud: “Don’t you think that with (other) remedies available, if we grant remedy, then everyone will come to the High Court? It will send wrong signal that though Section 439 is there, then why come under writ? It will also undermine the authority of lower courts.”
Advocate Subodh Desai appeared for Adnya Naik, Anvay Naik’s daughter, who seeks re-investigation into the 2018 case and action against the police officers “who did a miserable job of investigation” in the first instance.
Senior Advocate Shirish Gupte, appearing for the informant Akshata Naik, questioned the urgency behind giving Goswami three days of hearing. He further contended that there will be harm to the victim’s family if the journalist is released.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve then made rejoinder submissions on behalf of Goswami. Urging the Court to grant relief to his client, Salve argued that the powers of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are at par with the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
When Salve pressed for interim bail, the Court said that it could not pass an order immediately, and that it needed to consider the compilations and submissions made by the parties.
It thus reserved its orders in the matter and granted the parties four weeks’ time to file replies.
The case concerning the suicides of Anvay Naik and his mother was closed in 2019 after the police submitted an “A summary” report which indicated that there was insufficient evidence to proceed further against the accused.
During arguments made on behalf of Goswami yesterday, it was alleged that the State has been acting maliciously against Goswami, as could be gauged from the multiple proceedings recently initiated against him.
Reference was also made to the breach of privilege notice issued against Goswami by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the allegations being made against Republic TV in the TRP scam by the Mumbai Police. Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Aabad Ponda had appeared for Goswami.
Goswami was arrested on Wednesday morning in connection with a 2018 abetment to suicide case of interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik. Naik had named Goswami and two others in his suicide note alleging that they had failed to pay up money owed for the work done by Naik’s company. The case was reopened by the state government after two years.