9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 965 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - Illegal arrest and wrongful detained by the Station House Officer (SHO) at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report registered on 5 May 2018 Under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in spite of an earlier closure report which was accepted by the Magistrate - HELD THAT - While considering an application for the grant of bail Under Article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court. These factors can be summarized as follows (i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction; (ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the Accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the Accused at the trial or the likelihood of the Accused fleeing from justice; (iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused; (v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and (vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations. 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice . Decisions of this Court require the High Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them Under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the Accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies - The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. On the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower Courts in this country must be alive. In the present case, the High Court could not but have been cognizant of the specific ground which was raised before it by the Appellant that he was being made a target as a part of a series of occurrences which have been taking place since April 2020. The specific case of the Appellant is that he has been targeted because his opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority. Whether the Appellant has established a case for quashing the FIR is something on which the High Court will take a final view when the proceedings are listed before it but we are clearly of the view that in failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum - the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court - to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum - the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the Rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting. The remedy of bail is the solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice system 14 . Tasked as we are with the primary responsibility of preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot countenance an approach that has the consequence of applying this basic Rule in an inverted form. We have given expression to our anguish in a case where a citizen has approached this Court. We have done so in order to reiterate principles which must govern countless other faces whose voices should not go unheard. This Court had directed the release of all the three Appellants on bail pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court. The following operative directions were issued on 11 November 2020 The High Court was in error in rejecting the applications for the grant of interim bail. We accordingly order and direct that Arnab Manoranjan Goswami, Feroz Mohammad Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda shall be released on interim bail, subject to each of them executing a personal bond in the amount of ₹ 50,000 to be executed before the Jail Superintendent. They are, however, directed to cooperate in the investigation and shall not make any attempt to interfere with the ongoing investigation or with the witnesses - The concerned jail authorities and the Superintendent of Police, Raigad are directed to ensure that this order is complied with forthwith.
Issues Involved:
1. The appeal 2. The parties, the FIR, and 'A' Summary 3. Previous proceedings against the Appellant 4. Re-opening of investigation and arrest of the Appellant 5. Submissions of Counsel 6. Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2020 7. Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2020 8. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 and Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 9. Prima Facie evaluation of the FIR and the grant of bail 10. Human liberty and the role of courts 11. Conclusion Detailed Analysis: A. The Appeal The Appellant sought three reliefs: a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing of the FIR, and quashing of the arrest memo. The High Court did not press the Habeas Corpus writ and declined bail, suggesting the Appellant pursue bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. B. The Parties, the FIR, and 'A' Summary The Appellant, a prominent media figure, was arrested in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. The FIR was based on a suicide note alleging non-payment of dues by the Appellant's company. The police had previously filed an 'A' Summary, indicating no evidence to justify a trial. C. Previous Proceedings Against the Appellant The Appellant cited multiple instances of alleged harassment by the State, including various FIRs and legal actions, suggesting a pattern of targeted persecution. D. Re-opening of Investigation and Arrest of the Appellant The State ordered a reinvestigation of the case, leading to the Appellant's arrest. The CJM declined police custody, remanding the Appellant to judicial custody, which the State challenged. E. Submissions of Counsel The Appellant's counsel argued that the arrest was malicious, the reinvestigation was ultra vires, and the FIR did not establish an offence under Section 306 IPC. The State's counsel contended that the High Court rightly refrained from granting bail and that further investigation was legitimate. F. Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2020 The appeal was filed by the sister of another Accused, arguing that the FIR did not mention her brother and that there was no basis for the allegations. G. Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2020 The Appellant, a Director in a company, argued that there was no personal connection with the deceased, and the dispute was purely commercial. H. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC The High Court's jurisdiction under these sections is to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. The High Court should have evaluated whether the FIR prima facie constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC. I. Prima Facie Evaluation of the FIR and the Grant of Bail The High Court failed to perform a prima facie evaluation of the FIR. The Supreme Court noted that the FIR did not establish the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The High Court should have considered the Appellant's liberty and granted interim bail. J. Human Liberty and the Role of Courts The Court emphasized the importance of human liberty and the duty of courts to prevent misuse of criminal law for harassment. The High Court failed to protect the Appellant's liberty adequately. K. Conclusion The Supreme Court directed the release of the Appellant on interim bail, noting the High Court's error in rejecting the bail applications. The interim protection will continue pending the High Court's final decision. Summary: The Supreme Court of India addressed multiple issues in the appeal, primarily focusing on the Appellant's arrest and the High Court's refusal to grant bail. The Court scrutinized the FIR under Section 306 IPC, finding it insufficient to establish abetment of suicide. The judgment emphasized the importance of human liberty and the role of courts in preventing misuse of criminal law for harassment. The Court directed the release of the Appellant on interim bail, highlighting the High Court's failure to protect the Appellant's liberty adequately.
|
