LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in denying interim bail and not evaluating the FIR prima facie in an abetment of suicide case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide
Case Name: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Judgment Date: 27 November 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 908
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J
Can a High Court deny bail without a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, especially when personal liberty is at stake? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. The State of Maharashtra, a case concerning the abetment of suicide. The court examined whether the High Court was justified in denying interim bail and not assessing the merits of the FIR.
The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee. The judgment was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
Case Background
The case stems from an FIR registered on May 5, 2018, at Alibaug Police Station, concerning the suicide of Anvay Naik and his mother, Kumud Naik. The informant, Akshyata Anvay Naik, the deceased’s spouse, alleged that her husband was under immense mental pressure due to non-payment of dues by several individuals, including Arnab Goswami.
The FIR stated that ARG Outlier Media Private Limited (owned by Arnab Goswami) had not paid Rs. 83 lakhs for a project, among other outstanding dues from other parties. A suicide note allegedly left by Anvay Naik held these individuals responsible for his and his mother’s death.
Initially, the police filed an ‘A’ summary report on April 16, 2019, indicating a lack of evidence to prosecute. However, on May 26, 2020, the case was transferred for reinvestigation, leading to Arnab Goswami’s arrest on November 4, 2020.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 2016 | ARG Outlier Media Private Limited awarded a contract to Concorde Design Private Limited (CDPL). |
| May 5, 2018 | FIR registered at Alibaug Police Station based on the complaint of Akshyata Anvay Naik. |
| May 6, 2018 | Notices under Section 91 of the CrPC served to ARG’s office. |
| May 7-8, 2018 | Representatives of ARG visited Alibaug Police Station and provided information. |
| May 22, 2018 | Arnab Goswami submitted a representation to the notice under Section 91. |
| May 30, 2018 & June 28, 2018 | Statements of ARG’s CFO and Company Secretary recorded. |
| April 16, 2019 | SHO at Alibaug Police Station filed an ‘A’ summary report, accepted by the CJM. |
| June 11, 2019 | ARG sent a letter to CDPL indicating transfer of Rs. 39.01 lakhs against indemnity. |
| June 15, 2019 | Akshyata Anvay Naik responded to ARG stating Rs. 88.02 lakhs was due. |
| November 6, 2019 | ARG reiterated readiness to pay Rs. 39.01 lakhs subject to authorization. |
| April 16, 2020 | Broadcast on Republic TV regarding the Gadchinchle incident. |
| April 21, 2020 | Broadcast on Republic Bharat regarding the Gadchinchle incident. |
| April 22, 2020 | FIR No. 238 of 2020 registered against Arnab Goswami at Nagpur. |
| April 24, 2020 | Nagpur FIR transferred to NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. |
| May 2, 2020 | FIR 137 of 2020 registered against Arnab Goswami at Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai. |
| May 19, 2020 | Supreme Court quashed all FIRs except the one transferred to Mumbai. |
| May 26, 2020 | Home Department of Maharashtra transferred the case to the crime investigation department for reinvestigation. |
| June 30, 2020 | Bombay High Court suspended proceedings in FIR 164 and 137 of 2020. |
| September 9, 2020 | Two employees of Arnab Goswami’s news channel arrested. |
| September 11, 2020 | Bombay High Court held that the letter of the Shiv Cable Sena did not have the force of law. |
| September 16, 2020 | Notice to show cause issued to Arnab Goswami for breach of privilege. |
| October 6, 2020 | FIR 843 of 2020 registered at Kandivali Police Station regarding the TRP scam. |
| October 8, 2020 | Commissioner of Police Mumbai mentioned Arnab Goswami’s name in the TRP scam. |
| October 15, 2020 | Local Crime Investigation Branch, Raigad, recorded the commencement of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. |
| October 15, 2020 | Arnab Goswami’s Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court. |
| October 19, 2020 | Bombay High Court called upon the Investigating Officer to submit the investigation paper in a sealed envelope on 4 November 2020. |
| November 4, 2020 | Arnab Goswami arrested in connection with FIR 59 of 2018. |
| November 4, 2020 | CJM declined to grant police custody and remanded Arnab Goswami to judicial custody. |
| November 5-7, 2020 | Bombay High Court heard the writ petition. |
| November 9, 2020 | Bombay High Court denied bail to Arnab Goswami. |
| November 11, 2020 | Supreme Court directed the release of Arnab Goswami, Feroz Mohammad Shaikh, and Neetish Sarda on interim bail. |
| November 27, 2020 | Supreme Court delivered the final judgment. |
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the abetment of suicide. It states that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines abetment. It states: “A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
The Court also discusses Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to make orders to give effect to the provisions of the CrPC, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Arnab Goswami):
- The arrest was rooted in malice, stemming from his criticism of the Maharashtra government and police.
- The reinvestigation was ultra vires, as it was ordered by the Home Minister without specific permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).
- The FIR’s allegations do not establish an offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
- There was no direct or indirect incitement, active role, or proximate relationship to the suicide.
- The High Court misinterpreted the judgment in State of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani [(2017) 2 SCC 779].
- The default rule is ‘bail, not jail,’ and the High Court should have granted bail.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Maharashtra & Informant):
- The High Court correctly did not inquire into mala fides or the merits of the FIR at the interim stage.
- Further investigation was carried out between October 15 and November 4, 2020, and statements were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.
- Instigation to commit suicide can be inferred from circumstances, as per Praveen Pradhan vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 734].
- The High Court was justified in drawing a balance between the rights of the accused and the family of the deceased.
- The power of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC is broad and does not require prior judicial sanction.
- The High Court was correct in not exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant bail.
- An ‘A’ summary does not preclude further investigation as per Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1346].
Arguments of Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda:
- There was no direct connection or interaction with the deceased.
- The FIR does not establish any remote connection to abetment of suicide.
- There was a genuine commercial dispute, and a civil suit was pending.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant (Arnab Goswami) | Respondent (State of Maharashtra) | Respondent (Informant) | Appellant (Feroz Shaikh) | Appellant (Nitesh Sarda) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mala Fides | ✓ Targeted due to criticism of the government | X Not inquired into at interim stage | X Not inquired into at interim stage | ||
| Validity of Reinvestigation | ✓ Ultra vires without CJM permission | ✓ Valid under Section 173(8) CrPC | ✓ Valid under Section 173(8) CrPC | ||
| Abetment of Suicide | ✓ No direct/indirect incitement | ✓ Can be inferred from circumstances | ✓ Can be inferred from circumstances | ✓ No connection to abetment | ✓ No connection to abetment |
| Interpretation of Habib Jeelani | ✓ Misinterpreted by High Court | ||||
| Grant of Bail | ✓ Default rule is bail, not jail | X Alternate remedy under Section 439 CrPC | X Alternate remedy under Section 439 CrPC | ||
| ‘A’ Summary | ✓ Reinvestigation not permissible | ✓ Further investigation permissible | ✓ Further investigation permissible | ||
| Commercial Dispute | ✓ Genuine commercial dispute | ✓ Genuine commercial dispute |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC to grant interim bail.
- Whether the High Court was correct in not evaluating the FIR, prima facie, to determine if the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC were made out.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC to grant interim bail. | Not Justified | The High Court failed to evaluate the FIR prima facie and abdicated its duty as a protector of liberty. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in not evaluating the FIR, prima facie, to determine if the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC were made out. | Not Correct | The High Court should have assessed the FIR to determine if the allegations constituted an offense under Section 306 of the IPC. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities and legal provisions:
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] | Supreme Court of India | Established the parameters for quashing an FIR, including situations where the allegations do not constitute an offense. |
| State of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani [(2017) 2 SCC 779] | Supreme Court of India | Clarified the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint. |
| Praveen Pradhan vs State of Uttaranchal and Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 734] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed that instigation to commit suicide can be inferred from circumstances. |
| Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1346] | Supreme Court of India | Held that an ‘A’ summary does not restrict further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. |
| State of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted the provisions of Section 306 in conjunction with Section 107 of the IPC. |
| Randhir Singh vs State of Punjab [(2004) 13 SCC 129] | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted the provisions of Section 306 in conjunction with Section 107 of the IPC. |
| Kishori Lal vs State of MP [(2007) 10 SCC 797] | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted the provisions of Section 306 in conjunction with Section 107 of the IPC. |
| Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs State of Gujarat [(2009) 4 SCC 52] | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted the provisions of Section 306 in conjunction with Section 107 of the IPC. |
| Amalendu Pal vs State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707] | Supreme Court of India | Stated that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. |
| S S Cheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190] | Supreme Court of India | Emphasized that a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide is necessary for conviction. |
| Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628] | Supreme Court of India | Held that a suicide note expressing anguish does not constitute abetment unless there is intent to cause suicide. |
| Common Cause vs Union of India [(2018) 5 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the provisions of Section 107 of the IPC and the requirement of intentional aid in the commission of a crime. |
| M Arjunan vs State [(2019) 3 SCC 315] | Supreme Court of India | Elucidated the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 of the IPC. |
| Ude Singh and Ors. vs State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2010 decided on 25 July 2019] | Supreme Court of India | Expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC and the factors to be considered. |
| Rajesh vs State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2019 decided on 18 January 2019] | Supreme Court of India | Held that conviction under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence. |
| Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011 decided on 1 October 2020] | Supreme Court of India | Held that mens rea has to be established to prove the offense of abetment. |
| Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2018) 7 SCC 781] | Supreme Court of India | Held that the mere fact of assigning work or stoppage of salary is not enough to prove criminal intent for abetment of suicide. |
| Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak Deorao Bhagat [(2019) 13 SCC 598] | Supreme Court of India | Held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the investigation when there were specific allegations of harassment. |
| Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of Maharashtra [(2019) 14 SCC 350] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the legal position that allegations must constitute an offense for proceedings to continue. |
| Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280] | Supreme Court of India | Outlined the factors to be considered for granting bail. |
| Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598] | Supreme Court of India | Outlined the factors to be considered for granting bail. |
| State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] | Supreme Court of India | Outlined the factors to be considered for granting bail. |
| Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496] | Supreme Court of India | Outlined the factors to be considered for granting bail. |
| Sanjay Chandra vs CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40] | Supreme Court of India | Outlined the factors to be considered for granting bail. |
| P. Chidambaram vs Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2019 decided on 22 October 2019] | Supreme Court of India | Outlined the factors to be considered for granting bail. |
| Romila Thapar vs Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 753] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the importance of a fair investigative process. |
| State of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand [(1977) 4 SCC 308] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle that the basic rule of our criminal justice system is ‘bail, not jail’. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Abetment of suicide.
- Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Definition of abetment.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Inherent powers of the High Court.
- Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Power to further investigate.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim of malice in arrest | The Court acknowledged the claim and noted the series of events since April 2020, but did not rule on it. |
| Appellant’s submission that reinvestigation was ultra vires | The Court did not rule on the legality of the reinvestigation but noted that the High Court should have evaluated the FIR prima facie. |
| Appellant’s submission that the FIR does not establish abetment of suicide | The Court agreed, stating that the FIR does not prima facie establish the ingredients of the offense under Section 306 of the IPC. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court misinterpreted the judgment in Habib Jeelani | The Court agreed that the High Court misapplied the precedent. |
| Appellant’s submission that the default rule is ‘bail, not jail’ | The Court agreed that the High Court should have granted bail. |
| Respondent’s argument that the High Court was correct in not inquiring into mala fides | The Court disagreed, stating that the High Court should have evaluated the FIR prima facie. |
| Respondent’s argument that instigation can be inferred from circumstances | The Court acknowledged the principle but found it not applicable in this case based on the FIR. |
| Respondent’s argument that an ‘A’ summary does not preclude further investigation | The Court did not rule on this point but focused on the High Court’s failure to evaluate the FIR. |
| Respondent’s argument that the High Court was justified in not exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant bail | The Court disagreed, stating that the High Court should have exercised its power to protect personal liberty. |
| Feroz Shaikh’s and Nitesh Sarda’s arguments that there was no connection to abetment | The Court agreed that there was no basis to implicate them in abetment of suicide. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court used the authorities to establish the principles for granting bail, the requirements for abetment of suicide, and the inherent powers of the High Court.
- Bhajan Lal*: Used to establish that the High Court should have evaluated if the FIR prima facie constituted an offense.
- Habib Jeelani*: The High Court misapplied this precedent, which was meant to emphasize restraint, not inaction.
- Praveen Pradhan*: The Court acknowledged the principle that instigation can be inferred from circumstances but found it not applicable in this case.
- Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya*: The Court did not rule on this point but focused on the High Court’s failure to evaluate the FIR.
- The other authorities were used to define abetment and to emphasize the need for a direct or indirect act of incitement for an offense under Section 306 of the IPC.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the need to protect personal liberty and ensure that the criminal justice system is not misused for targeted harassment. The Court emphasized the importance of a prima facie evaluation of the FIR by the High Court before denying bail. The Court also highlighted the principle of “bail, not jail” and the need for courts to be vigilant against the misuse of criminal law.
The ratio of fact to law in the judgment is balanced. The Court considered the specific facts of the case, including the FIR, the ‘A’ summary report, and the timeline of events. However, the judgment is primarily based on the legal principles governing abetment of suicide, the inherent powers of the High Court, and the importance of personal liberty. The Court’s reasoning is focused on the application of these legal principles to the facts of the case.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellants (Arnab Goswami, Feroz Mohammad Shaikh, and Neetish Sarda) on interim bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each. The Court also directed the High Court to consider the case afresh in light of the observations made in the judgment.
Flowchart of the Case