Arnab Goswami's Habeas Corpus Plea Against His Arrest - Live-Updates From Bombay High Court

As per "Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat" judgment, nod of Magistrate is needed for further investigation. A "seen and filed" endorsement is not enough : Ponda.

Point I am making is this - before closure, you have to seek further investigation under Section 156(3). If after closure, they should seek further investigation under Section 173(8). Neither done in this case : Ponda.

Ponda refers to last years SC decision in "Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat". 

Ponda continues. Refers to the Bhagwat Singh case.

Police has not referred to Section 156(3). They mention Sec 173(8). The law is that they should go back to pre-cognizance stage : Ponda.

A lawyer submits that he is appearing for an intervenor.

Ponda : I don't understand this.

Correction : The decision is Bhagwat Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 25 April, 1985

Ponda referring to the decision in Bhagwant Singh vs Commissioner Of Police, Delhi (1983), which he terms the "Bible of the Case" on the point of further investigation.

Justice Shinde (in lighter vein) to Ponda : Initially you said 7 minutes, now you have crossed.

No problem(smiling). Continue.

Justice Shinde : The petition by the original complainant is also listed today. That also needs to be heard.

Ponda : They(Naik family) should have gone back to the Magistrate.

Ponda : They (Naik family) cannot ask for a further investigation here(HC). They must go to the Magistrate.

The complainants now seek re-investigation. By their own admission, they also realize that the closure order needs to be set aside : Ponda.