HON’BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DELIVERING A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT GRANTED INTERIM PROTECTION TO THE JOURNALIST ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2020) 11 SC CK 0038

While disposing of the Criminal Appeal filed by the Journalist Mr. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami against the Order of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that 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 further recourse to their remedies in accordance with law. In said Judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the Chief Justices of every High Court should in their administrative capacities utilize the ICT tools which are placed at their disposal in ensuring that access to justice is democratized and equitably allocated. Liberty is not a gift for the few. Administrative judges in charge of districts must also use the facility to engage with the District judiciary and monitor pendency. As the data on the NJDG makes clear, there is a pressing need for courts across the judicial hierarchy in India to remedy the institutional problem of bail applications not being heard and disposed of with expedition. Every court in our country would do well to remember Lord Denning‘s powerful invocation in the first Hamlyn Lecture, titled  ‘Freedom under the Law’

“Whenever one of the judges takes seat, there is one application which by long tradition has priority over all others. The counsel has but to say, ‘My Lord, I have an application which concerns the liberty of the subject‘, and forthwith the judge will put all other matters aside and hear it. ...”

It is our earnest hope that our courts will exhibit acute awareness to the need to expand the footprint of liberty and use our approach as a decision-making yardstick. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgement also observed 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. These principles have evolved over a period of time and emanate from the following (among other) decisions: Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT, Delhi (2001) 03 SC CK 0112; Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 03 SC CK 0053; State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 09 SC CK 0044; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 10 SC CK 0060; Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (2011) 11 SC CK 0038; and P. Chidambaram vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 10 SC CK 0065 Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2019 decided on 22 October 2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that these principles are equally applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the court is called upon to secure the liberty of the accused. The High Court must exercise its power with caution and circumspection, cognizant of the fact that this jurisdiction is not a ready substitute for recourse to the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the backdrop of these principles, it has become necessary to scrutinize the contents of the FIR in the case at hand. In this batch of cases, a prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight risk during the investigation or the trial. There is no apprehension of tampering of evidence or witnesses. Taking these factors into consideration, the order dated 11 November 2020 envisaged the release of the appellants on bail.