Freedom For Arnab: SC Says Bombay HC Erred In Denying Bail
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2020-11-12 11:51:18
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
Finally, it took the sagacity of the Supreme Court to recognize that the arrest and the subsequent denial of bail to Arnab Goswami was not correct. The apex court granted interim bail to the TV anchor while making it clear that it will not pass any observations on the validity of the probe against him.
This is the correct stand. No one is questioning the probe. What is being questioned is whether a case in which a closure report was allowed by a competent court in 2018 was reopened as per law. Whether any new evidence had surfaced to call for the reopening of the case and whether, based on that evidence, the police had taken permission from a competent court to reopen the case.
The next thing that is being questioned is why the Raigad and Mumbai police display unnecessary haste in arresting Goswami and the other two named in the suicide note. The correct procedure should have been to summon them for questioning first. Any arrests, if at all necessary in such a case, would have come at a much later stage.
Finally, displaying an utter disregard for the maxim "bail, not jail" the Bombay High Court refused to grant bail to Goswami after protracted hearings. The Supreme Court has clearly said that it was erroneous on part of the High Court to deny bail. Saying that arresting the accused in such cases would have wider ramifications, the apex court observed that even if the allegation of "active incitement" in the abetment of suicide was true, the court asked "is it not a travesty of justice to deny bail during the pendency of trial?"
The Supreme Court judgment and the observations it made will perhaps have a sobering effect on the police and their political masters. Personal liberty of the accused during the pendency of trial is a legal right which cannot be denied. Arrests have to be made when absolutely necessary and courts should grant bail as a matter of right except in cases where the prosecution can prove that the accused is not cooperating, is hostile and may tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses. Even in that case, the court has the discretion to grant bail with stringent conditions.
Now, the sessions court and the Bombay High Court must examine whether due process was followed in reopening the case. It must question the police on the need for the same since a closure report had been filed earlier. It should also question the police about the need to arrest the accused. It must examine if there was "active incitement", as highlighted by the apex court, without which the abetment to suicide case has little chance of holding good. If this is a politically-motivated case, as it now seems to be, strict action must be taken against the bureaucrats and police officers who did their political masters' bidding and the court must warn the government against such misadventures.
