The Supreme Court today reiterated that Republic TV Editor Arnab Goswami will not be arrested till the pendency of proceedings before the high court in terms of its November 11 order. The court also added that even if the high court were to decide adversely, Goswami and his two associates will have further protection for four weeks.

The court was today announcing the reason for its earlier verdict in the case where it had granted bail. The court said that the evaluation of the FIR against Goswami prima facie does not establish any abetment to suicide charge against him. The top court said that the Bombay High Court failed to make a prima facie view of the FIR, the nature of the accusation, and the level of the charge against Goswami and erred in not granting bail.

Regarding the prima facie evaluation of the FIR lodged by Maharashtra Police about alleged non-payment of dues, driving the businessman to commit suicide, does not establish prima facie a charge of abetment against Goswami. Justice DY Chandrachud said: “We have perused over Section 306 of IPC. It cannot be said that the appellants had abetted the suicide of the head of the architectural firm. The HC said the justification to quash has to be exercised carefully. “The ingredient of the offense was not established. The HC has failed to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC and thus failed to exercise power under Article 226 of the constitution.“If the HC was carrying a prima facie evaluation then it could not have seen that there was no nexus between FIR and Section 306 IPC.”

Justice Chandrachud also said: “The appellants are residents of India and don’t post-flight risk, nor can they tamper with evidence. We have also added a section on human liberty and the role of courts: Section 482 recognizes powers of the HC to give effect to other provisions of CrPC. “It needs to be seen whether the accused can tamper with evidence, or whether the accused can flee, or whether ingredients of offense is made out along with interests of the state. These principles have emerged over time. Here the case is about the liberty of a citizen,” he added.

This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.