'I'm A News Anchor And May Have Said Things I Shouldn't Say, But This Isn't The Way To Silence Me' : Arnab Goswami's Lawyer Opposes Police Custody

Opposing the demand for police custody of Goswami, Senior Advocate Abad Ponda alleged that a civil dispute was being painted as a criminal one.

"I am a news anchor and may have said things I shouldn't say, but this is not the way to silence me. How it can be abetment to Suicide when in my mind it's a contractual dispute. How is that an instigation for suicide?," he said for Goswami.

"If people start committing suicide in contractual dispute there will be many suicide cases," he added.

He pointed out that Goswami was never called for questioning, even once, before being arrested on the Morning of November 4.

Reliance was placed on Joginder Kumar v. State Of UP, 1994 AIR 1349, whereby the Top Court had held that except in heinous offences, "arrest must be avoided" if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.

Even before the Bombay High Court, Senior Advocate Harish Salve had contended that there the State is 'acting out of malice'.

He had submitted there was no personal relationship between Goswami and the deceased and they were merely involved in a commercial transaction.

"You have commercial disputes with different people for over two years. You don't file a suit. You have creditors beating at your door. You kill yourself. There cannot be FIR for abetment to suicide for this.

The conduct for abetment to suicide must be direct and proximate… The Magistrate had rightly accepted the closure report of the police in 2019," he had argued. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in M Arjunan v. State, where it was held that mere use of abusive words for not paying back money borrowed will not amount to abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.

This ground has also been taken up in Goswami's bail application filed before the Raigad Sessions Court. Therein it has been stated that Goswami did not have any direct relationship with the deceased, commercial or otherwise, in his personal capacity. There was a contractual relationship that existed between his company, ARG and the deceased's company Concorde, which was strictly commercial in nature.

He pleaded that it was never his company's intention to avoid making any payments to Concorde that were legitimately due under the Work Orders.

He clarified that all payments legitimately due and payable to Concorde were made by ARG in terms of the Work Orders. However, due to the defects and other breaches of the Work Orders, the last three instalments were withheld till the rectification of such defects in accordance with the terms agreed to between the parties in the Work Orders.

Inter alia, Ponda contended that the State had not given any reason as to why the Court should override the CJM's order.

"The police have permission to question me in judicial custody. I have already alleged assault by police. We all know there are ways of assaulting which will not be visible. If I am sent to police custody God bless me," Ponda argued for Goswami.

He told the Court that even in 2018, when he was required for investigation of the case, he remained present, following which an A summary report was filed as there was no material against him. He claimed that the report mentioned that there is no nexus between the three co-accused. Nevertheless, he was picked up by the Police on same charges, and that is the first time he was told that the case against him has been reopened.

The hearing at the Alibag Sessions Court is underway. Live updates from the hearing are available here.

Goswami was arrested on the morning of November in a case registered by the Raigad Police in 2018 for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 52-year old interior designer named Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik. He was remanded to judicial custody by CJM Alibag and was kept at a local school which has been designated as a COVID-19 centre for the Alibaug prison. On Sunday, he was shifted to Taloja prison in Mumbai after the police alleged that Goswami used mobile phone in custody without permission.

Yesterday, a division bench of the Bombay High Court had refused interim bail to Goswami and other accused in the case after observing that the alternate remedy of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to them.

The Raigad police had closed the case in April 2019 saying that they did not find evidence against the accused named in the suicide note, including Goswami. However, in May this year, Anvay's daughter approached the Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh seeking the case be reopened.