ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 27-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020
NOVEMBER 27, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.482 and s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and
s. 34 – The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2020 in connection
with FIR registered u/s. 306 and s.34 of the IPC – It was alleged that
the appellant had not paid an amount due to the deceased for the
work which was carried out by him, as a result of which he was
under mental pressure and he committed suicide by hanging – In the
suicide note three individuals were held responsible including the
appellant – The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/
Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution and s.482 of the Cr.P.C. and sought
quashing of FIR along with other reliefs – Pending the disposal of
the petition, the appellant filed an application and sought his release
from the judicial custody – The High Court held that since the
appellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him avail of the
remedy of bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. – The High Court declined
prima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that the
allegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose the
commission of an offence u/s. 306 of the IPC – The appellant filed
an appeal before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the denial of his
interim prayer for the grant of bail – On 11.11.2020, the Supreme
Court, after reserving the judgment, ordered and directed the release
of all the three individuals including appellant on bail pending the
disposal of the proceedings before the High Court – Held: According
to the spouse of the deceased, her husband was over the previous
two years ‘having pressure as he did not receive the money of work
carried out by him’ – The deceased left behind a suicide note stating
that his “money is stuck and following owners of respective companies
are not paying our legitimate dues” – The consistent line of authority
of Supreme Court lays down that in order to bring a case within the
   [2020] 11 S.C.R. 896
896
purview of s.306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role
by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide – Therefore, the act of abetment by the person
charged with the said offence must be proved and established by
the prosecution – In the instant case, prima facie, on the application
of test laid down by the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the
appellant was guilty of having abetted suicide within the meaning
of s.306 of the IPC – The High Court in failing to notice the contents
of FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role,
functions and jurisdiction when seized of petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.–
As a consequence of its failure to perform its function u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction u/Art.226
to consider appellant’s application for bail – While considering
application u/Art. 226, the High Court must be circumspect in
exercising its power on the basis of the facts of each case – However,
the High court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the
power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal
liberty in an excess of state power – Therefore, the interim protection
granted to the accused on 11.11.2020 continue to remain in operation
pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court.
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Power to grant interim bail
– The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR registered u/s.
306 and s.34 of the IPC – Appellant filed petition u/Art.226/227 of
the Constitution and u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR
and the arrest memo – Thereafter, the appellant filed application for
interim bail – The High Court declined to evaluate prima facie at the
interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether an
arguable case has been made out – The High Court further declined
to allow the appellant’s prayer for interim bail and relegated him to
the remedy u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. – Aggrieved, the appellant filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court – It was submitted by the
respondents that procedural hierarchy of Courts in matters
concerning the grant of bail needs to be respected – Held: The
respondents are right in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.