TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), the Appellant sought three substantive reliefs: (i) A writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer ("SHO") at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report1 ("FIR") registered on 5 May 2018 Under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") in spite of an earlier closure report which was accepted by the Magistrate; (ii) The quashing of the above-mentioned FIR; and (iii) The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the Appellant had been arrested. These three reliefs2 are reflected in prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition before the High Court. 2. Pending the disposal of the petition, by an interim application in the proceedings3, the Appellant sought his release from custody and a stay of all further proceedings including the investigation in pursuance of the FIR. 3. A Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 9 November 2020, noted that prayer (a) by which a writ of habeas corpus was sought was not pressed. The High Court posted the he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mobile No. 8169947073, I am residing at the abovementioned address with my deceased Anvay Madhukar Naik, daughter Adnya Naik together. My husband is having company owned under name and dstype as Concorde Design and we were having our livelihood by doing business of architecture interior designing and engineering consultancy. My husband Anvay Madhukar Naik is having his native place at Village Kavir, Tai. Alibaug and at the said place my mother in law Kumud Madhukar Naik is residing. therefore my husband used to visit in between to my mother in law at Village Kavir Tai. Alibag. As also my husband used to bring my mother in law Kumud Naik in between with us at Mumbai. My husband for last two years was having pressure as he did not received the money of work carried out by him and he continuously used to inform me and therefore I also called in the office of Arnab Goswami and asked his accountant for payment of money of work done by us. As also contacted to other businessman also and informed that my husband is in great difficulty and as the money is not received he is under great mental pressure. Yesterday on 04.05.2018 at 3.45 pm in afternoon my husband Anvay Madhukar Naik and my mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Andheri 10) Mr. Nitesh Sarda owner of smart works Magarpatta and Baner Project (55 Lacs pending) 11) kindly collect money from them and held them responsible for our death and pay to creditors 12) I and my mother are directors in Concorde India company and following persons have till now not paid me money of work done by me. In which it is written as Arnab Goswami ARV Outlife of Republic TV having Rs. 83 Lac of work done, 2) Firoz Khan having 4 crores of work done, 3) Nitesh Sarda 55 lacs of work done should be deposited and should be held responsible for my death and getting the same deposited and pay the dues of public. With regard to the contents written in the said note my husband Anvay Madhukar Naik had continuously informed me for last one or two years. While he used to tell me he was under immense pressure. Therefore I am having lawful complaint against. Arnab Goswami, 2. Firoz Khan, 3. Nilesh Sarda the persons whose names written in said suicide note by my husband Anvay Madhukar Naik that the abovementioned amount was due from them and even after continuously demanding the said amount have not paid the said amount and therefore my husband was under great pressure therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Magistrate for trial. Para 219 (3) of the Bombay Police Manual reads thus: RULE 219 (3) OF BOMBAY POLICE MANUAL (3) The final report should be written up carefully by the officers incharge of the Police Station personally and should be accompanied by all the case papers numbered and indexed methodically. If the Accused has been released on bail, the Magistrate should be requested to cancel the bail bond. He should also be requested to pass orders regarding the disposal of property attached, unless any of the articles, e.g., blood stained clothes, are required for further use in true but undetected cases. A request should also be made to the Magistrate to classify the case and to issue an appropriate summary of his order, viz.: "A" True. undetected (where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or property or where the Accused in known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate (for trial). "B" Maliciously false. "C" Neither true nor false, e.g., due to mistake to fact or being of a civil nature. "Non-cognizable" Police investigation reveals commission of only non-cognizable offence. 10. Following the 'A' summary, there was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st identical. In the State of Maharashtra, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, details of which were as follows: Maharashtra FIR No. 238 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, Under Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Apart from the above FIR, fourteen other FIRs and complaints were lodged against the Appellant in relation to his broadcasts. 14. The Appellant moved this Court in proceedings Under Article 32 of the Constitution4 challenging the registration of these FIRs. By an interim order dated 24 April 2020, the FIR which had been lodged at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City was transferred to NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai and was renumbered as FIR 164 of 2020. Another FIR, FIR 137 of 2020, was registered against the Appellant on 2 May 2020 at the Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai. FIR 137 of 2020 was filed against the Appellant due to a telecast which took place on 29 April 2020 on the Appellant's new channels, in which the Appellant referred to a gathering of migrant workers at the Bandra Railway st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrate, in spite of the order of the Bombay High Court; (vi) The registration of FIR 843 of 2020 on 6 October 2020 at Kandivali Police Station (later transferred to the Crime Intelligence Unit, Mumbai) on a complaint by an employee of Hansa Research Group Private Limited in relation to the TRP scam'; (vii) A press conference by the Commissioner of Police Mumbai on 8 October 2020 mentioning the name of the Appellant as being allegedly involved in the TRP scam'; (viii) The Appellant instituted a Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution6 before this Court seeking reliefs in respect of FIR 843 of 2020. By an order dated 15 October 2020, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Appellant to approach the Bombay High Court; and (ix) The Appellant filed Writ Petition (Crl.) Stamp No. 3143 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court, in which on 19 October 2020 an order was passed calling upon the Investigating Officer to submit the investigation paper in a sealed envelope on 4 November 2020. The High Court noted that the Appellant had as on date not been arrayed as an Accused in the FIR and if the investigating officer proposed to make an enquiry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an application for regular bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a direction that it should be heard expeditiously within four days of the date of filing. Following the above direction, the Appellant moved the Sessions Court, Raigad for bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By its impugned judgment and order dated 9 November 2020, the High Court posted the hearing of the petition filed by the Appellant in regard to the prayer of quashing of the FIR on 10 December 2020. While doing so, the High Court denied bail to the Appellant on the ground that no case has been made out for the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction and that the Appellant had an alternate and efficacious remedy Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. E Submissions of counsel 23. Assailing the order of the High Court denying bail to the Appellant, Mr. Harish N Salve, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that: (i) The arrest of the Appellant is rooted in malice in fact, which is evident from the manner in which the Appellant as the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV and R Bharat has been targeted for his news broadcasts criticizing the Maharashtra governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. Hence, it has been urged that there is absolutely no ground to continue the arrest of the Appellant and absent any reasonable basis for depriving him of his liberty, an order for the grant of bail should have been passed by the High Court. Mr. Salve finally submitted that the interest in preserving the procedural hierarchy of courts must give way to the need to protect the Appellant's personal liberty given the well settled legal position that the default Rule is 'bail, not jail'. 25. Opposing the above submissions, Mr. Amit Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent submits that: (i) The High Court has advisably not enquired into whether: i. The investigation is tainted by mala fides; and ii. The contents of the FIR as they stand make out an offence within the meaning of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) The High Court declined to express a prima facie view on the issue of mala fides since an opportunity was being granted to the State to file its counter. Similarly, the issue as to whether the FIR is liable to be quashed would be taken up at the final hearing on 10 December 2020 and hence the Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending Writ Petition for being released on bail; (ix) Both the issue of whether the Appellant has made out a case for quashing the FIR and whether a reinvestigation could have been ordered at the Home Department of the State would be considered by the High Court on 10 December 2020; (x) The High Court has drawn a balance between the rights of the Accused and the family of the deceased victim. A substantive Writ Petition has been filed by the informant, stating that it was only through a tweet on the social media that she had learned of the 'A' summary and that she had not been heard before the order was passed by the Magistrate accepting the police report; (xi) Even when 'A Summary has been accepted in terms of Para 219(3) of the Bombay Police Manual, there is no restraint on a further investigation being carried out by the Investigating Officer Under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An 'A' summary postulates that there was no completed investigation. Hence, requiring prior judicial sanction as a precondition for conducting further investigation after the filing of an 'A' summary will impede the ability of investigating authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on filed by the State against the order declining to grant remand to police custody; (iii) On 7 November 2020, the High Court posted the proceedings for pronouncement of judgment on 9 November 2020 and granted liberty to the Appellant to file an application for bail. Thereafter, an application for bail was filed on 8 November 2020 by the Appellant. A Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court thereafter. The High Court has correctly declined to enquire into the plea for quashing the FIR and the alleged mala fides on the ground that counters are still to be filed; and (iv) On 15 October 2020, the Crime Detection Unit intimated the CJM that it was commencing further investigation on which the CJM has made an endorsement that it had been "noted and filed". Statements were recorded Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a broad power of further investigation on the Investigating Officer. Having regard to the context of an 'A summary, this power has been legitimately exercised in the present case. The exercise of the power of further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actors in order to furnish their business centre at Pune, one of whom was CDPL and a purchase order of Rs. 4.17 crores was issued. Thereafter, there were substantial delays and discrepancies in the execution of the work by CDPL which led to an exchange of mails. Furthermore, an invoice of over Rs. 5 crores was raised including an amount of Rs. 83.02 lacs towards GST. Pursuant to this, a payment of Rs. 4.40 crores was made but there was a genuine commercial dispute between the two companies in relation to the remaining amount. 34. It has been submitted that on the face of it, there is no basis in the FIR to even remotely implicate the Appellant in the alleged offences Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is not even an indication of a personal interaction or connection between the Appellant and the deceased. Furthermore, a civil suit regarding the disputed debt between their companies is pending. 35. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in support of two distinct reliefs. The first relief is for a writ of habeas corpus. This relief has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the power Under Section 173(8) is to cause a "further investigation" and no power has been vested to either reinvestigate or cause a fresh investigation to be made. The power to reinvestigate or to cause fresh investigation, it was urged, is vested only in the constitutional courts. Contrary to the provisions of Section 173(8), it was urged, the Home Department in its letter to the deputy Inspector General has directed a reinvestigation. In the present case, the communication of the Home Department makes it abundantly clear that a reinvestigation was ordered under the authority of the State Home Minister which, according to the submission, is ultra vires the provisions of law. Mr. Rohatgi has emphasised that the application for remand makes it clear that what is ordered was a reinvestigation, since the application has repeatedly used the expression "comprehensive reinvestigation" and the fact that "reinvestigation has become necessary". 39. Finally, it was urged that the order of the Home Minister in the State was issued on 26 May 2020 whereas the investigation commenced on 15 October 2020 and the arrest was made on 4 November 2020 in respect of an FIR lodged in May 2018 on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be at liberty to apply for regular bail Under Section 439. 42. Now, it is in this background that it becomes necessary for this Court to evaluate what, as a matter of principle, is the true import of the decision of this Court in Habib Jeelani (supra). This was a case where, on the basis of a report Under Section 154 off the Code of Criminal Procedure, an FIR was registered for offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the initiation of the criminal action, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash an FIR was invoked. The High Court (as paragraph 2 of the judgment of this Court in Habib Jeelani (supra) indicates) expressed its "disinclination to interfere on the ground that it was not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case". It was in this background that the following issue was formulated in the first paragraph of the judgment of this Court, speaking through Justice Dipak Misra (as he then was), for consideration: 1. The seminal issue that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the High Court while refusing to exercise inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. 12. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated: (Bhajan Lal case [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604], SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. 15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetition that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case [Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order. 43. Thereafter, this Court noted that "the High Court has not referred to allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation". While on the one hand, the High Court declined in exercising it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 44. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure However, it nonetheless directed the investigating agency not to arrest the Accused during the pendency of the investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation "and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law". Clearly therefore, the High Court in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim bail has been made out. The settled principles which have been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 ("Bhajan Lal") include a situation where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 47. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shing an FIR registered for offences Under Sections 306 and 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the Accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the Accused-Appellant. In the decision of a two judge Bench of this Court, delivered by Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, the test laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) was applied and the Court held: 10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the Accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable Under Sections 305 and 306 Indian Penal Code. 50. More recently in M. Arjunan v. State (represented by its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in the following observations: 7. The essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the Accused cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ually draws the victim to commit suicide, the Accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the Accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the Accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the Accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the Accused and the deceased. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana9, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows: 9. Conviction Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e charge of abetment of suicide Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The mere factum of work being assigned by the Appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the Appellant were quashed. 53. On the other hand, we must also notice the decision in Praveen Pradhan (supra) where a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding, implicating an offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The suicide note which was left behind by the deceased showed, as this Court observed, that "the Appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased, who was compelled to indulge in wrongful practices at the workplace, which hurt his self-respect tremendously." The Court noted that the Appellant always scolded the deceased and tried to always force the deceased to resign. Resultantly, the Court observed: 19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegations that the first Respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first Respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first Respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first Respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the Respondent. The above observations of the Court clearly indicated that there was a specific allegation in the FIR bearing on the imputation that the Respondent had actively facilitated the commission of suicide by continuously harassing the spouse of the victim and in failing to rectify his conduct despi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealing with the petition Under Section 482 for quashing the FIR, the High Court has not considered whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in this judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients of the offence have not prima facie been established. As a consequence of its failure to perform its function Under Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction Under Article 226 to consider the Appellant's application for bail. In considering such an application Under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of the facts of each case. However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power. 57. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one - and a significant-end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important: the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omponents is found wanting. 61. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Amit Desai and Mr. Chander Uday Singh are undoubtedly right in submitting that the procedural hierarchy of courts in matters concerning the grant of bail needs to be respected. However, there was a failure of the High Court to discharge its adjudicatory function at two levels - first in declining to evaluate prima facie at the interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether an arguable case has been made out, and secondly, in declining interim bail, as a consequence of its failure to render a prima facie opinion on the first. The High Court did have the power to protect the citizen by an interim order in a petition invoking Article 226. Where the High Court has failed to do so, this Court would be abdicating its role and functions as a constitutional court if it refuses to interfere, despite the parameters for such interference being met. The doors of this Court cannot be closed to a citizen who is able to establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the depr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons where human dignity has no protector. As judges, we would do well to remind ourselves that it is through the instrumentality of bail that our criminal justice system's primordial interest in preserving the presumption of innocence finds its most eloquent expression. 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. 64. We would also like to take this opportunity to place on record data sourced from the National Judicial Data Grid ("NJDG") on the number of bail applications currently pending in High Courts and District Courts across India: Pendency before the High Courts Bail Applications 91,56815 Criminal Matters (Writ Petitions, Case/Petitions, Appeals, Revisions and Applications) 12,66,133 Pendency before the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing operative directions were issued on 11 November 2020: 9. We are of the considered view that 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 Rs. 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. 10. The concerned jail authorities and the Superintendent of Police, Raigad are directed to ensure that this order is complied with forthwith. 11. A certified copy of this order shall be issued during the course of the day 68. The interim protection which has been granted to the above Accused by the order dated 11 November 2020 shall continue to remain in operation pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court and thereafter for a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment of the High Court, should it become necessary for all or any of them to take furthe....