In an unconventional hearing, the Bombay High Court on Saturday reserved the order in the interim bail plea filed by Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami, who is in judicial custody in connection with a 2018 case of abetment of suicide.
After hearing the matter for an entire day, a division bench of Justices S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik reserved the order. Once an order/judgment is reserved the court can take upto three months to deliver it. However, the bench said it will try to give the order as early as possible.
Also read: Court rejects request for Arnab Goswami’s police custody
The court said, “We can’t pass any order today. Meanwhile, we will clarify that pendency of the petition will not bar the petitioner from approaching the sessions court for bail and if such an application is filed, it should be decided within four days.”
After Mr Goswami was arrested on November 4 by Raigad Police and was sent to judicial custody for 14 days by the chief judicial magistrate. He then moved the high court on November 6 seeking immediate release and quashing of the FIR against him. He along with Firoz Shaikh and Niteesh Sardaare charged with sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. They have been accused of not paying Naik Rs 5.04 crore.
The court said all the petitioners can seek regular bail under Section 439 (special powers of high court or court of session regarding bail) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The bench heard arguments by senior advocates Harish Salve and Aabad Ponda representing Mr Goswami, senior advocate Amit Desai for Maharashtra government, Advocates Vijay Agarwal for Mr Sarda for three days.
On Saturday, Mr Desai argued that Mr Goswami is not under unlawful custody and he is under judicial custody.He said, “Arrest happens before a person is produced before the Magistrate. The moment your illegal arrest has resulted in a judicial remand, the question of arrest is not relevant later.”
He added, “The issue of arrest is distinct from issue of custody. Questions of quashing FIR for not disclosing offence, question of illegal arrest and question of detention are different.”
