The Bombay High Court reserved its order in the habeas corpus and bail pleas filed by Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in connection with the abetment to suicide case for which he is currently in judicial custody. The case concerns the suicides of Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik and the same was closed in 2019 after the police submitted a summary report which indicated that there was insufficient evidence to proceed further against the accused.

The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik heard the matter on Saturday after obtaining the consent of the parties on Friday.

The Court refused to grant Goswami interim bail, noting that its order should not be construed as an impediment to the journalist to approach the Sessions Court for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). If such lower court is approached for bail, it shall decide the matter within four days, the High Court further held.

Advocate Subodh Desai appeared for Adnya Naik, Anvay Naik's daughter, who seeks re-investigation into the 2018 case and action against the police officers “who did a miserable job of investigation” in the first instance. Senior Advocate Shirish Gupte, appearing for the informant Akshata Naik, Anvay Naik's wife, questioned the urgency behind giving Goswami three days of hearing. He further contended that there will be harm to the victim’s family if the journalist is released.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Aabad Ponda had appeared for Goswami. Then Salve made rejoinder submissions on behalf of Goswami. Urging the Court to grant relief to his client, Salve argued that the powers of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are at par with the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

When he pressed for interim bail, the Court said that it could not pass an order immediately and that it needed to consider the compilations and submissions made by the parties. The Court's concern was that "With (other) remedies available, if we grant remedy, then everyone will come to the High Court. It will send wrong signal that though Section 439 is there, then why come under writ. It will also undermine the authority of lower courts."

During arguments made on behalf of Goswami yesterday, it was alleged that the State has been acting maliciously against Goswami, as could be gauged from the multiple proceedings recently initiated against him.

Reference was also made to the breach of privilege notice issued against Goswami by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the allegations being made against Republic TV in the TRP scam by the Mumbai Police.

It thus reserved its orders in the matter and granted the parties four weeks' time to file replies.