This case is infamously known as the ‘Anvay Naik suicide case’.
The case relates to the alleged suicide committed by architect Anvay Naik and his mother in Alibaug in the year.
The suicide was committed on account of non-payment of dues worth 5 crores 40 lakh by Arnab Goswami (editor-in-chief and MD of Republic TV), Feroz Sheikh (founder and CEO ICASTX technologies), and Nitesh Sarda.
Due to lack of evidence, a closure report was filed in 2019 by the police and it was accepted by the Chief judicial magistrate (CJM). Subsequently, an “A” summary was also filed in the case.
However, due to repeated pleas placed to the state government by the informant (wife of deceased) to reopen the case and the letter was written to the Home ministry by Shiv Sena legislator Pratap Sarnaik prompted the state government to reopen the case and transfer it for the investigation to state CID.
All the three accused were granted Interim bail by the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, wherein the division bench of the apex court crystallized a cloudy point of law regarding powers inherent to High Courts under Article 226.
The bench said that High courts have the power to grant not only ‘interim bails’ but also ‘regular bails’ under Article 226 of the constitution.
The final decision of the court, in this case, is still The case is going through the process of trial as the charge sheet has been filed and the Judicial magistrate (JM), Alibaug has taken cognizance of the charge sheet.
Brief facts of the case
Year 1: 2018
Interior designer and architect Anvay Naik and his mother committed suicide in Alibaug.
A suicide note was recovered in the hand-writing of the deceased that was taken as a dying declaration.
Both the deceased were directors of an Interior design company named ‘Concorde design Ltd.’
An I.R was registered in this connection on 5th May 2018 against the 3 accused persons.
Year 2: 2019
- Due to lack of evidence, the police filed a closure report in the case which was accepted by the CJM. It was followed by the filing of “A” summary by the Judicial magistrate (JM).
Year 3: 2020
In May 2020 Shiv Sena legislator Pratap Sarnaik wrote a letter to the home ministry, the government of Maharashtra demanding that this case be given equal importance as Sushant Singh Rajput’s suicide
As a result of continuous persuasion by the wife of the deceased to reopen the case was reopened by the state government and transferred to the CID. Resultantly, further investigation.
On 4th November Arnab Goswami was arrested by the police and remanded to judicial custody.
On 9th November, the Bombay High Court rejected the Interim bail application of the applicant.
On 11th November, the Supreme Court accepts the Interim bail application, and the accused got released from judicial custody for the time.
On 4th December, Raigad police filed a 1914 pages long charge sheet against the 3 accused persons under section 306 (abetment to suicide), 109 (punishment for abetment) and 34 (the act is done in furtherance of common intention) I.P.C, on 16th December, Judicial magistrate, Alibaug took cognizance of the case.
Findings of Bombay high court
Judgment dated 9th November 2020: Interim bail application
After the arrest of the accused on 4th November, a habeas corpus writ was filed in the Bombay high court against his arrest in regard to FIR under section 306 & 32
The division bench comprising Justice S.S Shinde and M.S Karnick shed light on “Power of Superintendence” that was explained by the apex court in State of Bihar vs J.A.C Saldanha (1980).
According to the lordships, the power of superintendence empowers the state government to direct further investigation to the concerned Police officer in any
The Court while denying interim bail reasoned that there was an alternative & efficacious remedy available under Section 439 of CrPC, 1973 (Regular bail) and thus exercised Judicial restraint.
The counsel for the petitioner (accused) contended that the arrest was ex-facie illegal because the closure report and “A” summary were filed and the case was closed by the CJM.
So according to Section 173(8) of CrPC the Investigating officer (IO) is not authorized to investigate until the order granting “A” summary by CJM is set aside.
The High Court rejected this plea while referring to clause (3) of Rule 219 of Bombay police manual, 1959, and laid down a distinction between Reinvestigation and further investigation.
While Reinvestigation needs prior permission, further investigation doesn’t need The Court held that it was a matter of further investigation.
In explaining its verdict the Court cited Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat (2019), in this case even after filing of “A” summary, the IO carried on the further investigation after intimidating the magistrate.
Even statements were recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC. The Supreme Court upheld the process to be
The counsel for the petitioner also prayed for quashing of the FIR & Reinvestigation and release of the petitioner by virtue of the powers inherent to the court under section 226 and 482 of CrPC, 1973.
However, on the contention to stay the investigation the bench cited Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal- in this case, it was held that core of Section 156, 157 and 159 of CrPC gives enormous and exclusive powers to Police & investigative agencies for investigation of any cognizable offense and the court can’t have control or power to stifle or impinge proceedings of
A quote from the Judgment rejecting interim bail to the petitioner said-
“The continuous persuasion of the state government by the informant for redressal of her grievance since two of her family members have committed suicide, and in the aforesaid background, the concerned Investigating officer, after intimating magistrate, commences a further investigation, can’t be said to be irregular or illegal by any stretch of the imagination”.
Judgment dated 16th December 2020
A petition was filed in the Bombay high court by the counsels for the accused persons seeking to restrain the Judicial magistrate from taking cognizance of the charge sheet filed by Raigad Police.
The counsels for the petitioner prayed the bench to stop JM from taking cognizance of the charge sheet on the ground of the Supreme Court’s view on the matter in its order dated 27th November 2020 wherein it opined that prima facie the facts in the FIR doesn’t constitute the offense of abetment to suicide
However, a dramatic incident happened in between the proceeding of the case. The counsel of the petitioners received information that the Judicial Magistrate at Alibaug court has taken cognizance of the
When the lawyer got to know it he sought the court’s leave to amend the writ petition to bring on record the charge sheet. The request was accepted by the Hon’ble bench.
Findings of the Supreme Court
Judgment dated 11th November 2020: release order of the appellant
On an appeal against the high court’s refusal to grant interim bail, the Supreme Court’s division bench constituting Justice DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee granted interim bail to all three accused.
The court also clarified that under Article 226 a high court can grant interim as well as regular bail.
Judgment dated 27th November 2020
- The division bench held that Prima-facie the evaluation of facts of FIR doesn’t disclose the offense of abetment to suicide against the appellant.
- The court opined that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
=======================
To help you out in your exam preparation, we suggest you take a free trial of CLAT 2021: A Comprehensive Course. Crack CLAT 2021 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait?
Comments
write a comment