2020 (11) TMI 965 - SUPREME COURT

Grant of Bail - Illegal arrest and wrongful detained by the Station House Officer (SHO) at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report registered on 5 May 2018 Under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in spite of an earlier closure report which was accepted by the Magistrate - HELD THAT:- While considering an application for the grant of bail Under Article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court. These factors can be summarized as follows:

(i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction;

(ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the Accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the Accused at the trial or the likelihood of the Accused fleeing from justice;

(iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused;

(v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and

(vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations.

Human liberty is a precious constitutional value, which is undoubtedly subject to Regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognizes the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure "or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". Decisions of this Court require the High Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them Under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the Accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies - The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. On the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower Courts in this country must be alive. In the present case, the High Court could not but have been cognizant of the specific ground which was raised before it by the Appellant that he was being made a target as a part of a series of occurrences which have been taking place since April 2020. The specific case of the Appellant is that he has been targeted because his opinions on his television channel are unpalatable to authority. Whether the Appellant has established a case for quashing the FIR is something on which the High Court will take a final view when the proceedings are listed before it but we are clearly of the view that in failing to make even a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum - the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court - to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum - the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the Rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting.

The remedy of bail is the "solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice system"¹⁴. Tasked as we are with the primary responsibility of preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot countenance an approach that has the consequence of applying this basic Rule in an inverted form. We have given expression to our anguish in a case where a citizen has approached this Court. We have done so in order to reiterate principles which must govern countless other faces whose voices should not go unheard.

This Court had directed the release of all the three Appellants on bail pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court. The following operative directions were issued on 11 November 2020:

The High Court was in error in rejecting the applications for the grant of interim bail. We accordingly order and direct that Arnab Manoranjan Goswami, Feroz Mohammad Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda shall be released on interim bail, subject to each of them executing a personal bond in the amount of ₹ 50,000 to be executed before the Jail Superintendent. They are, however, directed to cooperate in the investigation and shall not make any attempt to interfere with the ongoing investigation or with the witnesses - The concerned jail authorities and the Superintendent of Police, Raigad are directed to ensure that this order is complied with forthwith.