Anvay Naik suicide case: Bombay HC refuses interim bail to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami

The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday refused interim bail to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami, arrested by Alibag police on November 4 in connection with a 2018

The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday refused interim bail to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami, arrested by Alibag police on November 4 in connection with a 2018 suicide abetment case. The HC also refused to stay further investigation against Goswami and two others – Feroz Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda – booked in the case.

HT Image

“The victim’s rights are equally important, like the rights of the accused,” said a bench of justice SS Shinde and justice MS Karnik, while also rejecting pleas for interim reliefs filed by co-accused in the case.

Anvay Naik, 53, an architect and managing director of Concorde Designs Private Limited, died by suicide in his Alibag farmhouse in Raigad on May 5, 2018, police said. His mother, Kumud, too, was found dead at their home. In his suicide note, police said, Naik alleged he was being forced to take this step as he was not paid his dues – ₹83 lakh by Goswami, ₹55 lakh by Sarda of Smartworks and ₹4 crore by Shaikh of IcastX/Skimedia. Acting on a complaint by Naik’s wife, Akshata, police registered an offence booking the trio on May 5, 2018. On April 16, 2019, then investigating officer of the case submitted an A-summary report and sought closure of the case for want of prosecutable evidence against any of the three accused. The jurisdictional magistrate had accepted the report the same day.

The HC bench rejected Goswami’s argument that the police could not have carried further investigation and could not have arrested him in the closed case, primarily in view of the fact that the magisterial order accepting A summary was without giving notice and an opportunity to the informant - Akshata Naik - to oppose the summary report. The HC said the fact that the magistrate did not give notice and opportunity of hearing to the first informant, before accepting the summary report, “goes to the root of the matter”.

“In the aforesaid background, the concerned investigating officer, after intimating the magistrate, commences the further investigation cannot be said to be irregular or illegal by any stretch of imagination,” said the bench, rejecting Goswami’s plea for interim bail and stay on investigation.

A day after his arrest by Alibag police, Goswami moved the HC with a prayer for habeas corpus writ and quashing of the criminal proceeding. He had filed an interim application seeking him immediate release on bail, claiming his arrest was patently illegal, for the investigation was commenced in a “dead and closed” case, without taking appropriate permission from the jurisdictional magistrate. The HC rejected his contention, accepting the argument advanced by senior advocate Amit Desai that, unlike B and C summaries, A-summary is not a closure report and the police need not take specific permission for carrying further investigation. “In our opinion, the further investigation cannot be termed as illegal and without seeking permission of the Magistrate,” said the bench. “The same is in consonance with the power conferred by section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure,” it added.

The bench clarified that merely because the magistrate had accepted the A-summary report (indicating that the complaint is true but nobody can be sent for trial for want of adequate evidence) submitted by earlier investigating officer, that would not mean and preclude the new investigating officer to invoke the provisions of section 173(8) to commence further investigation, after giving intimation to the jurisdictional magistrate.

The HC found support to the view from a Supreme Court ruling in Andhra Pradesh v/s. AS Peter, in which the Apex court has held that carrying out further investigation even after filing of charge sheet, is a statutory right of the police and the law does not mandate taking prior permission of magistrate for carrying further investigation. “It is observed that whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not,” said the bench.

The HC also found no force in Goswami’s argument that further investigation in the 2018 case was part of an evil design to implicate him in criminal cases. In this regard, the bench said the further investigation was ordered by superior police officers, on the basis of complaints made by the complainant, Akshata Naik.

The judges said the complainant and her daughter, Adnya, were justified in pursuing the matter with the state and senior police officials, as they had lost two family members. HC said the complainant had serious grievance about the earlier investigating officer and came to know about closure in the case through a tweet.

HC found nothing wrong in the state government or senior police officials ordering further investigation into the case, as provisions of the Bombay Police Manual specifically confer superintendent powers on senior police officials and the power of overall supervision of the police force on the state government.

The court had now posted the petitions filed by Goswami, Sarda and Shaikh’s sister Parveen Singh on December 10, to consider their prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding.