2018 suicide abetment case: Court order on plea for Arnab Goswami’s police custody due on Thursday

Arguing for Goswami, senior counsel Abad Ponda on Tuesday requested the court not to grant police custody. Ponda said there was a contractual dispute with Naik as the work done by him was not satisfactory.

A sessions court in Alibag will on Thursday deliver its order on the revision application filed by Alibag police to question Arnab Goswami and two others arrested in connection with the 2018 suicide abetment case of architect Anvay Naik and his mother, Kumud. Goswami, Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda were arrested on November 4.

Republic TV Editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami in police van after hearing from Alibag court at Alibag court in Alibag, India, on Wednesday, November 04, 2020. (Satish Bate/HT PHOTO)

Arguing for Goswami, senior counsel Abad Ponda on Tuesday requested the court not to grant police custody. Ponda said there was a contractual dispute with Naik as the work done by him was not satisfactory. “90 per cent of the amount was paid and 10 per cent of the amount was kept on hold. This matter is of contractual dispute and that should be decided in a civil court, not in a criminal court. If people start committing suicide in contractual dispute, then there will be many suicide cases,” argued Ponda. “There was no need to arrest Goswami as he was not absconding and was available for questioning…After the incident in 2018, when the FIR was registered, my client was called to record his statement, and he remained present. And at that time, police chose not to arrest him and filed ‘A’ summary report. It was clearly mentioned in the ‘A’ summary that there is no nexus between accused number one, two and three in this crime. My client was not aware till 4th of November that a closure report has been filed in this case. My client was told about it when he was arrested. My client was not called for questioning even once before arrest. Joginder Singh principle said in every case arrest is not required. There is no question of further custody.”

There are no reasons made out on why this court should go against magistrate court order for judicial custody, argued Ponda. “Also, the magistrate court has already given permission to police to question my client in judicial custody three hours every day, then why is police custody required? My client has already alleged assault by police and we all are very much aware there are ways of assaulting which will not be visible. If I am sent to police custody, God bless me,” Ponda argued before the court.

Niha Raut, defence lawyer for Shaikh, argued there was no direct work contract between the companies of Shaikh and Naik. “Shaikh had given work contract to Atos India Pvt Limited company which gave a sub-contract to Naik. The contract was given on the total price of around ₹3.85 crore. However, my client has paid around ₹4.78 crore,” argued Raut. “There is no connection between my client and Naik. Naik has taken several work contracts for interior work and has given money to his sub-contractors, and kept pending work of his customers,” said Raut.

Public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat pointed out that “the order given by magistrate was perverse”. “Learned magistrate didn’t use the discretion given and hence correctness and proprietary of the order is under challenge. Magistrate was duty bound not to get swayed in pressure,” said Gharat. “Fair chance should be given to police to confront the accused with available evidence to verify,” argued Gharat.