RASHTRASANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR

UNIVERSITY’S
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW,
NAGPUR.

B.A. LL.B 5 YEARS

FOURTH SEMESTER

SUBMITTED BY
URVI KEWLANI
CASE
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS 2020
Date of judgement: 27 November 2020
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5598
of 2020)
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Bench: Hon’ble Dr Chandrachud, Hon’ble Ms Malhotra, Hon’ble Ms Banerjee
Referred: Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal
Code 1860

INTRODUCTION
The case of Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra revolves around the arrest of Indian
journalist Arnab Goswami and two others in connection with the abetment to suicide case of
interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother. The incident dates back to 2018 when Naik and
his mother died by suicide, allegedly due to non-payment of dues by Goswami's media
company. The case was initially closed but was later reopened by the Maharashtra police,
leading to Goswami's arrest in November 2020.
Arnab Goswami, known for his outspoken and often controversial style of journalism, argued
that his arrest was politically motivated and a violation of his fundamental rights, including
freedom of speech and expression. He claimed that the case against him was aimed at harassing
him for his critical stance against the Maharashtra government.
The Supreme Court of India, in its interim order, granted bail to Arnab Goswami, emphasizing
the importance of protecting personal liberty and preventing the misuse of state power. The
case has sparked debates about freedom of the press, political interference in legal matters, and
the need for fair treatment of individuals irrespective of their public profile.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Arnab Goswami is the editor-in-chief of Republic TV, an English news channel.
He is also the managing director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd. which operates
a Hindi news channel called R Bharath. On the 4th of November 2020, the appellant was
arrested under an FIR registered on the 5th of May 2018 by Akshyata Anvay Naik, who is the
informant and spouse of the deceased Anvay Naik, who along with his mother Kumud Naik
were directors of Concorde Designs Pvt. Ltd. and had allegedly committed suicide due to
mental pressure caused by the appellant because of nonpayment of Rs. 83 lacs for an interior
design project for which ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. had contracted with Concorde Designs
Pvt. Ltd. In addition, Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda, who are appellants in the connected
criminal appeal, owed the deceased an outstanding amount of Rs. 4 crores and Rs. 55 lacs
respectively.
The police had recovered from the scene a suicide note written by Anvay Naik, in which he
held the three responsible for his and his mother’s suicide. After some time, by the 6th of
November 2019, ARG addressed a letter to the informant recording the closure of the police
investigation as the said people had paid all the dues. But in the month of April 2020, a
broadcast made on Republic TV by the appellant led to the lodging of several FIRs and criminal
complaints against him and the 2018 case was also reopened. As a result of all these
happenings, the accused was detained.
After he failed to attain bail from the Sessions Court, the accused invoked the jurisdiction of
The High Court of Bombay under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sought three substantive reliefs:
i) A writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he claimed that he had been illegally arrested and
wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer at Alibaug Police Station in the district of
Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report (CR No. 0059 of 2018)
registered on the 5th of May 2018 under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
in spite of an earlier closure report which the Magistrate had accepted;
ii) The quashing of the FIR mentioned above; and
iii) The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the appellant had been arrested.
A Division bench of the High Court of Bombay by an order dated 9 November 2020 noted that
the prayer by which a writ of habeas corpus was sought was not pressed. The court did not
accede to the prayer for the grant of bail by placing reliance on a decision of the same court in
the State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani.
The Court was of the view that the appellant’s prayer for interim relief was based on the premise
that he had been detained illegally and that the court would not entertain his request for bail or
stay of investigation. The appellant being in judicial custody it was up to him to avail the bail
under Section 439 of CrPC. This led the appellant, aggrieved by the denial of his interim prayer
for grant of bail, to the Supreme Court of India.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The case of Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra has its roots in the events that transpired
before Arnab Goswami's arrest in November 2020. Here's a brief historical background leading
up to the case
Allegations of Non-Payment In 2018, interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother died by
suicide. Naik left a suicide note alleging that Arnab Goswami's media company, Republic TV,
and two other companies owed him substantial sums of money, which had led to his financial
distress. The case was initially investigated by the Maharashtra Police, which filed a closure
report citing lack of evidence to support the allegations of abetment to suicide against Arnab
Goswami and the others. The case was closed, and no charges were pressed.
In May 2020, the Maharashtra government ordered the reopening of the case following a
request from Anvay Naik's daughter. This led to the Maharashtra Police re-investigating the
matter.
On November 4, 2020, Arnab Goswami was arrested by the Maharashtra Police in connection
with the case. The arrest sparked a debate about freedom of the press and the alleged misuse of
state machinery to target Goswami for his critical reporting.
Arnab Goswami filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging his arrest and
seeking interim bail. He argued that his arrest was politically motivated and a violation of his
fundamental rights. Supreme Court's Interim Order On November 11, 2020, the Supreme Court
granted interim bail to Arnab Goswami, stating that personal liberty must be zealously guarded
and that the judiciary must ensure that the criminal law does not become a tool for selective
harassment.

ISSUES RAISED
Whether or not the appellants be granted interim bail?
The primary issue raised in the case of Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra was the legality
of Arnab Goswami's arrest and detention in connection with the abetment to suicide case of
interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother. The case raised several legal issues, including:
Arnab Goswami argued that his arrest was aimed at stifling his freedom of speech and
expression, as he believed it was motivated by his critical reporting of the Maharashtra
government. Goswami claimed that he was being selectively targeted by the Maharashtra
government, and his arrest was politically motivated, highlighting concerns about the misuse
of state power.There were allegations of procedural irregularities in Goswami's arrest,
including the manner in which it was carried out and the failure to follow due process.
The case raised broader issues about the misuse of criminal law to target individuals for their
political views or journalistic work, rather than for legitimate legal reasons.
The Supreme Court's decision to grant interim bail to Arnab Goswami also raised questions
about the importance of protecting personal liberty and ensuring that individuals are not
arbitrarily deprived of their freedom.

APPELLANT ARGUEMENTS
Appellants lawyer submitted that
The appellant being the editor-in-chief of two prominent news channels had been targeted for
his broadcasts in which he criticized the government and police of Maharashtra and hence the
arrest of the appellant was rooted in malice;
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. To constitute the offence of abetment there must
exist:
A direct or indirect incitement to the commission of a crime;
An active role of the accused in instigating or doing an act facilitating the commission of the
crime; and the existence of a proximate relationship in time.
Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted as they stand, no case of abetment has been
established. It has been submitted that there was a contract entrusted by ARG for interior work
with the deceased’s company. Also, it was not in dispute that while an amount of Rs. 5.45
crores had been paid, there was a commercial dispute pending in regard to the remaining
payment between the two companies. It was also known that the deceased was suffering from
mental pressure.
Further, submitted that the judgement in Habib Jeelani had been wrongly interpreted by the
High Court. It was argued that there was no reason to continue with the appellant’s arrest as
there was no reasonable basis for his detainment and urged that he had been a target of the State
government’s vendetta.
He also submitted that in the interest of preserving the procedural hierarchy of courts must give
way to the protection of the appellant’s personal liberty as the default rule is ‘bail, not jail’.

RESPONDENT ARUGEMENTS
Respondents lawyer submitted that:
The High Court had refrained from expressing a prima facie view on the issue of mala fides
since an opportunity to do so was being granted to the State to file its counter. Also, the issue
of whether or not the FIR is liable to be quashed was going to be taken up on the 10th of
December 2020. Therefore, the court had rightfully declined from expressing a prima facie
view
From this court’s judgement in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., instigation to
commit suicide has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. Therefore, even
if there may not be direct evidence with respect to instigation which may have direct nexus to
suicide, inference has to be drawn from the prevailing circumstances whether they created a
situation because of which a person felt totally frustrated and ended his life. While making a
determination of quashing proceedings, the court has no obligation to form a firm view but
only a tentative opinion
A hierarchy of courts Is provided to consider an application of bail under Section 439 CrPC
and in the present case there is no valid basis to by-pass that hierarchy in order to grant bail to
the appellant.

CONCLUSION
JUGDEMENT
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the appellants on bail. “Post-independence, the
recognition by Parliament of the inherent power of the High Court must be construed as an aid
to preserve the constitutional value of liberty”. “The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of
the Constitution”. The court also opined that this case is an instance where the appellant has
been targeted because the opinions on his news channel are unpalatable to the government of
Maharashtra. The court held that it is the “duty of the High Courts to function as a protector of
liberty… and equally, it is its duty to ensure that law does not become a ruse for targeted
harassment”.

RATIONALE
The order dated 11 November 2020 envisaged the release of the appellants on bail. The
Supreme Court held that human liberty is a precious constitutional value which is undoubtedly
subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such the citizen is subject to the edicts
of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to
make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of CrPC.
The court emphasized the importance of protecting personal liberty, stating that it must be
zealously guarded, especially in cases where there are allegations of procedural irregularities
or misuse of state power.
The court expressed concern about the possibility of selective harassment and misuse of state
machinery for political purposes. It stressed that the criminal law should not be used as a tool
for targeting individuals based on their political views or journalistic work.
The court reaffirmed the importance of upholding constitutional rights, such as freedom of
speech and expression, and ensuring that individuals are not arbitrarily deprived of their
liberty.The court's decision also underscored the need for fair treatment of individuals in legal
proceedings, irrespective of their public profile or political affiliations.
Overall, the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision in the Arnab Goswami case was to
uphold the rule of law, protect individual liberties, and prevent the misuse of state power for
political purposes.

OPERATING PART
The operating part of a court judgement typically includes the specific orders or directions
given by the court.
Granting interim bail to Arnab Goswami and the other accused in the case.
Directing the accused to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating
officer as and when required.
Restraining the Maharashtra Police from taking any coercive action against the accused in the
case.
Directing the accused to furnish a personal bond for their release.
Issuing notices to the Maharashtra government and other parties involved in the case to respond
to the petition filed by Arnab Goswami.
Listing the matter for further hearing to determine the legality of the arrest and other related
issues.

IN CONCLUSION
In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court put personal liberty on a pedestal and held it to be
one of the most important rights provided by the Constitution of India. The case raises concerns
regarding the misuse of State power in a democracy. The Court also took the opportunity to
point towards the huge number of bail applications currently pending in High Courts and
District Courts across India.

OPINION
My opinion on the Arnab Goswami case is that it raises important issues regarding the
protection of freedom of speech and expression, as well as the need to prevent the misuse of
state power for political purposes. While it is essential to ensure that individuals are held
accountable for their actions, it is equally important to uphold constitutional rights and ensure
that legal proceedings are fair and transparent. The Supreme Court's decision to grant interim
bail to Arnab Goswami highlights the importance of safeguarding personal liberty and
preventing the abuse of criminal law for selective harassment.

REFRENCES
Section 306 cases
Sunanda Pushkar Case: Sunanda Pushkar, the wife of Indian politician Shashi Tharoor, was
found dead in a hotel room in Delhi in 2014. The Delhi Police registered a case of abetment to
suicide against unknown persons. The case alleged that Pushkar was driven to suicide due to
strained relations with her husband.
Jiah Khan Case: Bollywood actress Jiah Khan was found dead in her apartment in Mumbai in
2013. Her death was initially reported as a suicide, but her mother later filed a case alleging
that Khan was driven to suicide by her boyfriend, actor Sooraj Pancholi. Pancholi was charged
with abetment to suicide.
Pratyusha Banerjee Case: Indian television actress Pratyusha Banerjee was found dead in her
Mumbai apartment in 2016. Her boyfriend, Rahul Raj Singh, was charged with abetment to
suicide based on allegations that he had harassed and abused her, leading her to take her own
life.
Gajendra Singh Case: Gajendra Singh, a farmer from Rajasthan, committed suicide during an
Aam Aadmi Party rally in Delhi in 2015. The Delhi Police registered a case of abetment to
suicide against AAP leaders based on allegations that they had instigated Singh to take his own
life.
Section 34
State of Maharashtra v. Salman Khan: In this case, actor Salman Khan and several others were
accused of hunting and killing protected wildlife species. Section 34 was invoked as it was
alleged that the accused acted together with a common intention to commit the crime.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav: In this case, the accused were charged with murder
under Section 302 read with Section 34. It was alleged that the accused acted together to
commit the murder with a common intention.
State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh: In this case, the accused were charged with rioting and
causing grievous hurt under Sections 147, 148, and 326 read with Section 34. It was alleged
that the accused acted together with a common intention to commit the offenses.