The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it must send a message to high courts to “exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty” as it heard a plea of Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami challenging the Bombay HC order denying him intermim bail.
A vacation bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee after hearing the interim bail plea of Arnab Goswami in the 2018 case of alleged abetment to suicide Anvay Naik and his mother in 2018 over alleged non-payment of dues.
“We are dealing with personal liberty here and because he was owed money, Naik committed suicide due to financial stress. Is this a case of Custodial questioning?” Justice Chandrachud asked.
The Bombay HC has written a 50+ page order but has not dealt with the ingredients of the offence, he said.
“Assuming the FIR is the gospel truth and that is a matter of investigation but is not paying up money Abetment to suicide? It will be a Travesty of justice if bail is not granted while FIR is pending,” he added.
“Travelling to the path of destruction if court does not interfere today. Whatever be his ideology, lest I don’t even watch his channel but if in this case, constitutional courts do not interfere today – we are traveling the path of destruction undeniably,” Justice Chandrachud remarked.
“Case after case, High Courts are denying personal liberty,” Justice Chandrachud observed.
The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant interim bail to Goswami and two others in the case and had asked them to move to the local court for the relief.
Goswami was arrested on November 4 from his Lower Parel residence in Mumbai and taken to Alibaug in neighbouring Raigad district.
He and the two other accused were later produced before a magistrate who refused to send them in police custody and remanded them in judicial custody till November 18.
However, the a very relevant question arises whether it is possible for an ordinary man to stretch so far from lower courts to High Courts and then to Supreme Court to get rid of state sponsored victimisation and failure of High Court to ensure the liberty of an individual.
