The Supreme Court, vide judgment dated November 27, 2020, has held that the FIR against Arnab Goswami under allegations of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on an assessment at first appearance, does not divulge into the said offenses charged against him.
The instant case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., was an appeal filed by Mr. Goswami on the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, refusing to grant an interim order of bail in his favour.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court, there exist a detachment between the FIR registered in this case and the elements of Section 306 of the IPC 1860. Therefore, as a result, the appellant, prima facie does not appear to have committed the offenses charged against him.
The High Court had dismissed the interim relief of bail sought by the appellant on the grounds that the appellant had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 praying for various other reliefs. The High Court was of the opinion that if the petitioner was desirous of being enlarged on bail while being under judicial custody, then he should prefer an application for bail under Section 439 C.r. P.C. Moreover, the High Court even refused to delve into the matter as to whether a prima facie case against the petitioner existed or not.
To establish an offense punishable under Section 306 IPC, to be liable for abetment of suicide, the following criteria must be met:
The Supreme Court held that, without the satisfaction of these preliminary necessities, the High Court had erred in not establishing a prima facie case against the accused. And since no prima facie case against the accused was made out, the High court had further erred in refusing to release the accused on bail.
The Supreme Court went ahead and clarified that in appropriate cases, High Courts are within their powers to grant interim bail to the accused petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.