New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court bench headed by the Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee on November 11 will hear the plea filed by Republic Chief Arnab Goswami who has challenged the Bombay High Court orders refusing him interim bail in the abetment of suicide case.
The petition filed through Advocate Nirnimesh states that the High Court order is erred in law while holding that the Court cannot exercise power under Article 226 when there is alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail. Having regard to the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has to exercise judicial restraint while entertaining application in the nature of seeking regular bail in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,” said the Bombay High Court while rejecting the habeas Corpus plea filed by Arnab Goswami.
In his petition Arnab Goswami submits before the Supreme Court, “there is an error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the impugned order dated 9 November 2020 records that- There is no dispute that as on the date of filing of the petition, there was already an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand of the petitioner in custody and proceeds to deal with the natter on this erroneous understanding. The Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the arrest of the petitioner on the morning of 4 November at around 7:45 AM in connection with the FIR No. 59 of 2018, was illegal, mala-fide and politically motivated, malicious and without due course to the process of law.”
“It failed to appreciate that at the time of filing the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner was not even produced before the Ld. CJM and thereafter the question of the existence of an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand of the Petitioner in custody does not and cannot arise,” avers the plea.
The petition before the Supreme Court also states that the High Court proceeded to deal with the Habeas Corpus law when it was categorically made clear that the Petitioner is not pressing that prayer and was interested only in the prayers for quashing of the case and the investigation, and for the grant of interim relief like bail.
On 9/11/2020, Arnab Goswami has filed the Regular bail application before the session court little before his plea for interim bail was rejected by the Bombay High Court.
While speaking to India Legal Advocate Rajesh Kumar, Supreme Court of India has said, “On one hand his regular bail application is pending before the Session Court. On the other hand he has challenged the judgment of Bombay High Court by filing SLP before the Supreme Court seeking bail. The question here arises, whether his SLP become infructuous before the Supreme Court in the backdrop of his pending regular bail application before the Sessions court?”
Also Read: If states are all unlocking, why not courts, asks PIL by lawyer in MP High Court