NDLI: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – s.482 and s.439 – Penal Code 1860 – s.306 and s. 34
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 – s.482 and s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 ands. 34 – The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2020 in connectionwith FIR registered u/s. 306 and s.34 of the IPC – It was alleged thatthe appellant had not paid an amount due to the deceased for thework which was carried out by him, as a result of which he wasunder mental pressure and he committed suicide by hanging – In thesuicide note three individuals were held responsible including theappellant – The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution and s.482 of the Cr.P.C. and soughtquashing of FIR along with other reliefs – Pending the disposal ofthe petition, the appellant filed an application and sought his releasefrom the judicial custody – The High Court held that since theappellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him avail of theremedy of bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. – The High Court declinedprima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that theallegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose thecommission of an offence u/s. 306 of the IPC – The appellant filedan appeal before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the denial of hisinterim prayer for the grant of bail – On 11.11.2020, the SupremeCourt, after reserving the judgment, ordered and directed the releaseof all the three individuals including appellant on bail pending thedisposal of the proceedings before the High Court – Held: Accordingto the spouse of the deceased, her husband was over the previoustwo years ‘having pressure as he did not receive the money of workcarried out by him’ – The deceased left behind a suicide note statingthat his “money is stuck and following owners of respective companiesare not paying our legitimate dues” – The consistent line of authorityof Supreme Court lays down that in order to bring a case within thepurview of s.306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in thecommission of the said offence, the person who is said to haveabetted the commission of suicide must have played an active roleby an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate thecommission of suicide – Therefore, the act of abetment by the personcharged with the said offence must be proved and established bythe prosecution – In the instant case, prima facie, on the applicationof test laid down by the Supreme Court it cannot be said that theappellant was guilty of having abetted suicide within the meaningof s.306 of the IPC – The High Court in failing to notice the contentsof FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role,functions and jurisdiction when seized of petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.–As a consequence of its failure to perform its function u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.,the High Court disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction u/Art.226to consider appellant’s application for bail – While consideringapplication u/Art. 226, the High Court must be circumspect inexercising its power on the basis of the facts of each case – However,the High court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of thepower when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personalliberty in an excess of state power – Therefore, the interim protectiongranted to the accused on 11.11.2020 continue to remain in operationpending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court.Constitution of India – Art.226 – Power to grant interim bail– The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR registered u/s.306 and s.34 of the IPC – Appellant filed petition u/Art.226/227 ofthe Constitution and u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIRand the arrest memo – Thereafter, the appellant filed application forinterim bail – The High Court declined to evaluate prima facie at theinterim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether anarguable case has been made out – The High Court further declinedto allow the appellant’s prayer for interim bail and relegated him tothe remedy u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. – Aggrieved, the appellant filed anappeal before the Supreme Court – It was submitted by therespondents that procedural hierarchy of Courts in mattersconcerning the grant of bail needs to be respected – Held: Therespondents are right in submitting that the procedural hierarchy ofcourts in matters concerning the grant of bail needs to be respected– However, there was a failure of the High Court to discharge itsadjudicatory function at two levels – first in declining to evaluateprima facie at the interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR asto whether an arguable case has been made out, and secondly, indeclining interim bail, as a consequence of its failure to render aprima facie opinion on the first – The High Court did have the powerto protect the citizen by an interim order in a petition invoking Art.226 – Where the High Court has failed to do so, Supreme Courtwould be abdicating its role and functions as a constitutional courtif it refuses to interfere, despite the parameters for such interferencebeing met.Words and Phrases – “Human Liberty and the role of the Courts” –discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 665
Petitioner	Arnab Manoranjan Goswami
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 11 S.C.R. 896
Judgement Date	2020-11-27
Case Number	742

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors.

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.

George and Others Vs. State of Kearla and Anr .

Mohd. Yaseen Vs. State of U.p.

Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Ors

Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Baikunth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Bankat and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors.

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.

George and Others Vs. State of Kearla and Anr .

Mohd. Yaseen Vs. State of U.p.

Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Ors

Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Baikunth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Bankat and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.