[Arnab Goswami arrest] Contractual disputes are not suicide abetment v. Police custody needed given his influence: Top arguments in Alibaug Court

The Sessions Court, Alibaug on Tuesday reserved orders in the revision application filed by the Maharashtra Police challenging an order denying them police custody over Republic TV's editor-in-chief, Arnab Goswami and the other accused, who were arrested in connection with the 2018 Anvay Naik suicide case last week..The case had been closed citing lack of evidence in 2019. However, the investigation was re-opened earlier this year..Additional Sessions Judge RG Malshetti heard four counsel appearing for the three accused and the State before reserving the order yesterday..Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda submitted that the re-opening of the Anvay Naik case investigation was unfair as the CJM had rightly accepted the closure report. .He further submitted that the conduct leading to abetment to suicide must be direct and proximate. In this case, he asserted that there was only a contractual dispute. He added that the police was trying to bring a criminal angle to it, leading to illegal arrest and detention.."If people start committing suicide in contractual disputes there will be many suicide cases."Ponda argued..Advocate Neha Raut, appearing for another accused, Feroze Shaikh, highlighted that the victim's family had not taken any action against the alleged omission of the police to conduct a thorough investigation..Raut brought to the Court's attention that the order accepting closure of the case was passed by the CJM after a thorough application of mind..She exclaimed that it was surprising that the wife of the victim was not the first one to know about the suicide, and was allegedly "unaware" of the investigation status.."The first person who would come to know about financial losses is the wife and who would commit suicide with her 'suhaag' is the wife!"Raut opined..Raut also informed the Court that the investigation team had been permitted to interrogate the accused while in judicial custody for 3 hours every day, which was enough for a thorough investigation.."Why does the police need me after I have submitted all my evidence, for third-degree torture like in Hindi cinemas?"Raut mused..Adocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for Nitesh Sarda, relied upon provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to argue that the police cannot force the accused, even if in police custody, to speak or give evidence..He added that whatever co-operation is required for a proper investigation can be extended by the accused even if not in custody. .He informed the Court that Sarda had co-operated with the police even before he was arrested. He submitted that Sarda appeared before the police on summons and did not seek anticipatory bail or any other application to avoid interrogation.."He was co-operationg, then why arrest him? He did not go absconding."Aggarwal claimed..Aggarwal concluded his arguments by submitting that the police were yet to show that they had begun their interrogation of the accused in Taloja jail. ."If they have not yet commenced, they are only using that permit of the court as an excuse argument to show they need custody" he concluded..The Special Public Prosecutor P Gharat made his rejoinder arguments yesterday in the revision application filed by the State seeking police custody. He reiterated that the remand order denying police custody is being challenged on grounds of correctness and propriety..He asserted that the arrest of the accused was necessitated because there was a suicide note which clearly had the names of the accused on it. ."Suicide may not be an offence, but abetment is. The accused have been charged for driving a person to commit suicide", he submitted..He argued that if custody was not necessitated, then the CJM would not have granted judicial custody nor allowed interrogation while in judicial custody. ."Why is police custody required then, arrest and put in judicial custody straightaway!" he exclaimed..He concluded his arguments by requesting the Court to set aside the order of the CJM granting judicial custody and instead grant police custody to the accused. .He also relied upon the observations of the Bombay High Court order to apprise the Court of why the interim bail of the accused were rejected.."Some police custody is necessary, considering the support to the accused from the political party and considering his influence."he concluded..After hearing all sides in the case, Malshetti reserved the application for order. The order will be pronounced tomorrow at 11 am..Goswami has also moved a bail application before the Sessions Court, which is posted to be heard on Thursday after the pronouncement of order in the revision application..Goswami has also moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's denial of interim bail. This challenge will be heard today.