Arnab Manoranjan Goswami V.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

Appeal (Crl.), 742 of 2020
• Citation: 2020 SCC Online SC 964
• Appellant: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami
• Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Others
• Judges Involved:
a) D.Y. Chandrachud
b) Indira Banerjee
• Year of Case: 2020
• Date of Judgement: 27 November,2020
 Facts of the Case
• The appellant was charged under S.306 read with S.107 of the IPC for the
abetment of suicide of Anvay Naik, a civil contractor and interior designer.
The deceased had mentioned the name of the appellant in his suicide note,
stating that the latter had not paid the dues for the work undertaken by the
his company, CDPL. This rendered the repayment of debts difficult for the
deceased which caused him mental agony and subsequently lead to him
committing suicide on 5/5/2018.
• The charge was filed by the wife of the deceased (informant) on 5/5/2018
• On 6/5/2018, officers from the Alibaug Police Station visited the appellant’s
office (ARG) and served 3 notices, to whose effect the representatives of ARG
furnished the necessary information.
• The SHO at Alibaug Police Station filed for a “A” summary in the court of the
CJM on 16/4/2019. the CJM passed the order and granted a “A” summary.
 Facts of the Case (Contd.)
• Following the granting of “A” summary exchange of correspondence between the
informant and ARG took place, the last of which was on 6/11/2019, in which the appellant
reiterated their readiness to pay Rs. 39.01 lakhs subject to due authorization and also
recorded the closure of police investigation.
• New developments were noticed when the Home Department of the State of
Maharashtra, on 26/5/2020, addressed a communication to the DIG of police stating that
the aforementioned case is being transferred to the Crime Investigation Department for
the purpose of reinvestigation.
• On 15/10/2020 the local branch of the CID informed the CJM of the commencement of
further investigation, following which the appellant was arrested on 4/11/2020.
• Following the pressing of charges, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings under A.226 of the Constitution read with S.482 of CrPC.
During the proceedings the appellant adverted to previous proceedings against him by the
State of Maharashtra and various recent instances to establish that the arrest was
motivated by malice. The High Court declined the appellant’s prayers and suggested that
he avail the remedy of bail under S.439 of the IPC since he was in judicial custody.
 Issues
• Following the inability of the Bombay High Court to evaluate prima
facie, the allegations in the FIR, the SC must evaluate if the case
comes under S.306 read with S. 34 of the IPC.
• Whether a case for interim bail has been made out in the given case?
 Rules
• The rules applicable to the first issue are S.306 IPC read along with
S.107 IPC. The essential ingredients under S.306 are the act of
abetment and the intention of the accused to aid or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. S.306 requires the existence of mens rea
to convict the accused for abetment and the existence of a positive
action on part of the accused, that too proximate to the time of
suicide.
• The rules applicable to the second issue are A.226 of the Constitution
and S.482 of the CrPC. The former deals with the settled down factors
dealing with granting bail applications and the latter with the inherent
powers of the High Court.
 Petitioners Contentions
• The senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Harish Salve, argued that the arrest
of his client is rooted in malice because the opinions expressed by him during the
broadcast of his show criticised the Maharashtra Government and Maharashtra
Police.
• He also argued that followed the issuance of ‘A’ Summary, a reinvestigation can be
opened only following the specific permission of the CJM thus making this
reinvestigation ultra vires since it was ordered by the Home Minister of
Maharashtra. Mr. Rohtagi also argued
• The counsel stated that even if all the allegations made in the FIR are accepted in
their entirety, no case for the abetment of suicide is made out under S.306.
Additionally, there is no allegation to show that the petitioner instigated the
deceased to commit suicide.
• The counsel added that the public prosecutor’s note to the Sessions Court to hear
the State’s revision application against the CJM’s order before the bail application is
proof that the petitioner is being targeted by the State Government.
 Respondents Contentions
• Mr. Sibal argued that Mr. Salve has wrongly focused on other cases implicating the appellant
in the course of his arguments.
• Mr. Sibal submitted that an ‘A’ summary is in fact not a closure report and investigation does
not stand concluded. Hence, he submitted that the Investigating Officer was within
jurisdiction in carrying out further investigation. (Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rohtagi
argued that the power under Section 173(8) is to cause a further investigation and no
power has been vested to either reinvestigate or cause a fresh investigation to be made. This
should be understood keeping in mind that application for remand makes it clear that what
is ordered was a reinvestigation, since the application has repeatedly used the expression
comprehensive reinvestigation‖ and the fact that reinvestigation has become necessary.
• Mr. Desai argued 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. He also stated that Between 15 October 2020 and 4 November 2020, a
further investigation has been carried out and statements have been recorded under Section
164 of the CrPC.
 Application
• The SC referred to earlier decisions and pointed out that the intention
the legislature and the ratio in relevant precedents make it clear that in
order to convict a person under S.306, a clear mens rea is necessary.
The SC also stated that a mere evaluation of the prima facie facts by the
Bombay HC would have brought out the disconnect between the facts
mentioned in the FIR and the provision of S.306 IPC.
• As for the second issue, the SC stated that while granting bail under
A.226 the HC must consider settled factors i.e., the nature of the
offence, existence of reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering
with evidence, antecedents of the accused etc. in the backdrop of these
principles the SC ordered the release of the appellants on bail since they
 Application (Contd.)
are residents of India and do not pose the risk of fleeing during the
investigation and there exist no apprehension of tampering of
evidence. As for S.428, the HC should have taken steps to ensure that
criminal law does not become a weapon for selective harassment of
citizens. This section recognizes the power of the HC to prevent abuse
of power and secure the ends of justice. The HC should have taken
cognizance of the ground raised by the appellant that he was being
targeted because his opinions are unpalatable to the authority.
 Conclusion
• The SC held that a case for the grant of interim bail was made and all
the three appellants were released on bail subject to a personal bond of
Rs.50000 being executed. The appellants were also directed to
cooperate with the investigation and not make any attempt to interfere
with the investigation or witnesses.
• The Judges expressed the importance of district level courts being of
utmost importance since they are the first point of interface between
the citizens and the judiciary. The court also viewed the NJDG as a
valuable ICT tool for courts to track the pendency and disposal of cases.
The wide scope of S.482 of the CrPC was also described and its
importance as a tool to prevent abuse of process along with protecting
the due investigation of crime by using the said section with caution.