The Supreme Court on Friday has given its judgment in Arnab Goswami case and said that the journalist's interim bail will remain in force for another four weeks even after the Bombay High Court decides on his plea for quashing of FIR.
The bench who gave judgment included Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, stated the reasons for granting Arnab an interim bail on November 11.
Notably, this judgment came as a sigh of relief for Arnab as he can now approach the apex court.
The journalist, however, had approached the apex court after the Bombay High Court denied to grant him bail.
The SC bench has now given a prima facie view stating that the preliminary evaluation of FIR did not found any evidence to prove the charges of abetment to suicide.
Also, the apex court was of the firm view that HC ought to have taken a prima facie view of the FIR, nature of allegations and it erred in not granting bail. It also said that in cases involving the liberty of citizens who are targeted by the state, the courts must ensure that the state does not use “criminal law as a tool to harass or jeopardize liberty (of citizens)."
Earlier, on November 11, the Bench had said that the state has no authority to target any individual in this manner for keeping divergent ideology/views and that constitutional courts will be duty-bound to protect the liberty of citizens.
"We are dealing with a person’s liberty. Across the country, if this court is not to interfere today, we are treading on a path of destruction of liberty....you may dislike a person’s ideology and challenge it but if this is what our states will do to nail persons, we have to put across this message to all high courts to preserve the liberty of citizens."
Senior advocate Harish Salve, who appeared for Goswami, had on that day argued that his arrest was conspired to target him for making unpalatable views against the Maharashtra government and state police in his TV debates. Salve stated the suicide note left by the deceased businessman Anvay Naik mentioned only Rs88 lakh as unpaid dues against Goswami while others named in the suicide note left by Naik owed him larger sums.
The bench even commented on the FIR involved in the case. The court had said, "in a matter of this nature where some amount is already paid and the person commits suicide due to financial stress, will you hold the head of the company for abetment to suicide? In most companies, work orders are given out as a labour contract.... Will it not be travesty of justice to deny bail to such a person when his quashing petition is pending."
Naik’s wife had approached the police with a complaint against Goswami and two others. The state police had filed a closure report but earlier this year, the police began a probe into the case.