2020 Supreme(SC) 678

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 742 TO 744 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 5598-5600 OF 2020)
Decided on : 27-11-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Doors of Apex Court cannot be closed to a citizen who is able to establish prima facie that instrumentality of State is being weaponized for using force of criminal law.
(2) Courts must be alive to need to safeguard public interest in ensuring that due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. Fair investigation of crime is an aid to it.
(3) High Court has jurisdiction to quash investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306 and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 439 and 482 – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Abetment of suicide – Common intention – Denial of bail by High Court – High Court has jurisdiction to quash investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law – High Court in present case has misdirected itself in declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether parameters in exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly established and if so whether a case for grant of interim bail has been made out – FIR recites that deceased had called at office of appellant and spoken to his accountant for payment of money – It has been stated that deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues – Prima facie, it cannot be said that appellant was guilty of having abetted suicide within meaning of Section 306 of IPC – If High Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible for it not to notice disconnect between FIR and provisions of Section 306 of IPC – Failure of High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it left appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under Section 439 – High Court was clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section 482 albeit at interim stage – As a consequence of its failure to perform its function under Section 482, High Court has disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider appellant‘s application for bail – In considering such an application under Article 226, High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of facts of each case – However, High Court should not foreclose itself from exercise of power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power – Appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight risk during investigation or trial – There is no apprehension of tampering of evidence or witnesses – Specific case of appellant is that he has been targeted because his opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority – Failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of FIR, High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty – Remedy of bail is solemn expression of humaneness of justice system – Interim protection which has been granted to accused by order dated 11 November 2020 shall continue to remain in operation pending disposal of proceedings before High Court and thereafter for a period of four weeks from date of judgment of High Court, should it become necessary for all or any of them to take further recourse to their remedies in accordance with law. (Paras 44, 55, 59, 60, 63 and 68)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Relevant factors – High Court must consider (i) nature of alleged offence, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of a conviction; (ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with witnesses or being a threat to complainant or witnesses; (iii) Possibility of securing presence of accused at trial or likelihood of accused fleeing from justice; (iv) Antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to accused; (v) Whether prima facie ingredients of offence are made out, on the basis of allegations as they stand, in FIR; and (vi) Significant interests of public or State and other similar considerations – High Court must exercise its power with caution and circumspection, cognizant of fact that this jurisdiction is not a ready substitute for recourse to remedy of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 57 and 59)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Human liberty and role of Courts – Human liberty is a precious constitutional value which is subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation – As such, citizen is subject to edicts of criminal law and procedure – Section 482 recognizes inherent power of High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to provisions of Cr.P.C. or prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice – Decisions of this court require High Courts, in exercising jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection – In emphasising that High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies – Public interest in ensuring due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that inherent power of High Court is exercised with caution – Courts must be alive to need to safeguard public interest in ensuring that due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed – Fair investigation of crime is an aid to it – Equally it is duty of courts across spectrum – district judiciary, High Courts and Supreme Court – to ensure that criminal law does not become a weapon for selective harassment of citizens – Courts should be alive to both ends of spectrum –need to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law on one hand and need, on other, of ensuring that law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. (Para 60)

Facts of the case:

Appellant sought his release from custody and a stay of all further proceedings including the investigation in pursuance of the FIR. High Court posted the hearing of the petition for considering prayer for quashing of the FIR on 10 December 2020. It declined to accede to the prayer for the grant of bail. High Court held that since the appellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him to avail of the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court declined prima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that the allegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 306 of IPC. That is how the case has come to this Court. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of his interim prayer for the grant of bail.

Findings of Court:

Since the proceedings are pending before the High Court, we clarify that the observations on the facts contained in the present judgment are confined to a determination whether a case for grant of interim protection was made out. Equally, the observations which are contained in the impugned order of the High Court were also at the interim stage and will not affect the final resolution of the issues which arise and have been raised before the High Court.

Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.