Big observations in Arnab's remand copy: 'No evidence presented to justify police custody'

The Bombay High Court on Thursday posted the petition of Republic Media Network's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami against his arrest by the Maharashtra police for hearing on Friday at 3 pm. 

On Wednesday, Republic Media Network accessed the copy of Alibag Chief Judicial Magistrate's remand order that was passed after a hearing that lasted five hours in connection with a 2018 'reopened' case in which Arnab Goswami was physically assaulted and arrested by the Maharashtra Police. The court in Alibaug in Maharashtra's Raigad district remanded Arnab Goswami in judicial custody for 14 days and rejected the police custody demanded by the cops, with the Alibaug Chief Judicial Magistrate Sunaina Pingle making key observations.

‘No Solid legal ground to grant police custody' 

The CJM after perusal of the case diary and other relevant documents had noted that the prosecution failed to prima facie establish a link between the deceased and the accused persons, according to the detailed order. The order stated that the magistrate found "no correct, independent and legal reason to grant police custody" It also said that the prosecution has not presented any evidence to justify the police remand. According to the remand order, the CJM also noted that there were "no strong reasons on why the previous investigation was incomplete" and hence did not grant the police custody. The judge also noted that the case had been re-opened without the court's consent.

In another one page order, the CJM noted the harassment, the torture and the ill-treatment meted out to Arnab when he was in the police station. "He (Arnab) has a complaint of ill-treatment at the hands of police. I have physically verified the person of the accused. I found abrasion on the right hand of the accused. The previous bandage of his right-hand thumb is found to be pulled. COnsidering abovesaid abrasion marks it is important upon the Court to send him for medical examination to Civil Surgeon. Therefore, I pass the following order," the order states.

Key Observations in Chief Judicial Magistrate's Order

On page 8, in point 18, the order notes:

'After taking note of the reasons of objections to police custody presented by accused 1 to 3, it seems that the arrest of the accused itself is illegal. After examining the documents closely, the incident that occurred, the death of the 2 people, the relation between the two people, also the relation with the accused should be established before seeking police custody. If the sequence of the incident is constant only then can the accused be linked to the incident and the police custody can be accepted. If for the sake of arguments, we consider that accused number 1 to 3 were yet to pay up, and if contractors and others were lining up at deceased Anvay Naik’s, then why did Kumudini Naik commit suicide? Did she even commit suicide? There is no satisfactory answer to this from the prosecution. The reason behind Kumudini Naik’s death, the connection with Anvay Naik’s death and its link with the three accused - this chain has not been completely established.'

On page 8, in point 19, the order notes:

'How was the previous investigation incomplete? What were the shortcomings in it? And why were there shortcomings? There has been no strong reason or evidence from the prosecution over this and that’s why police custody can’t be granted'

'NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO JUSTIFY DEMAND FOR POLICE CUSTODY' | On page 9, in Point 21, the order notes:

'As per the existing laws, for the police custody, it is necessary to get strong evidence and important material must be recovered from the accused. The evidence with which the accused has to be confronted in police custody, has to be with police and there should be strong evidence. But the reasons given to demand police custody of the accused, show that there is no material with which the accused will be confronted with. The reason mentioned in the remand application are of these nature - e-mail, folder, the forensic report, different work orders, list of vendors, Name and addresses, bank accounts and the details, three companies of the accused and deceased’s company, the different contracts between them, the work orders, its evaluation, the financial transactions, debit notes, the letters exchanged, financial and business dealings. Applicant’s demand for police custody is based on technical reasons and documents. No evidence has been presented to justify demand for police custody'

On page 9, in Point 22, the order notes:

'From the reman application, it appears that, without arresting any of the three accused, the investigation was started by recording statements of the complainant and witnesses, cross examination and proceedings under section 164. Remand application shows that the investigation is on in a positive direction. While confirming that the he investigation is on the right path, the investigation officer has said notices have been sent to 28 witnesses of which 17 have appeared for investigation. The laptop and mobile phone of the deceased have been sent to forensic laboratory. Deceased’s bank details have been collected and detailed investigation into financial transactions by analysts is underway. When the investigation is progressing, with not enough evidence/grounds against the accused to seek police, it is not necessary to grant police custody.'

’NO STRONG REASONS ON WHY PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION WAS INCOMPLETE, THEREFORE NO POLICE CUSTODY’ | On Page 10, point 24, the order notes: 

'Like I said earlier, nothing has been recovered from the accused. Whatever has been recovered has been recovered from the deceased and the complainant. Prima facie, the background/basis if the crime cannot be established. Similarly, prima facie, the link between the incident and its connection to the accused cannot be established. On these basis, when there is no evidence in a case ‘A’ summary in the case is accepted. When the previous statement is in force, the applicant has restarted the investigation but there is no correct, independent and legal reason to grant police custody. Similarly, the role of each accused hasn’t been mentioned. In that connection, it won’t be correct to probe it aggressively. I would like to mention again that, because there was no solid evidence of the incident that took place in the year 2018, there was an ‘A’ summary report and that’s why there is no solid legal ground to grant police custody of the three accused and that’s why I think it would be correct to reject demand for police custody.'

Shocking assault and arrest of Arnab Goswami

After a shocking assault on Wednesday morning, Republic Media Network's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami was arrested by the police. Arnab was dragged out of his own home as nearly 40-50 police officers cordoned off his residence. Moreover, the cops also attacked his 20-year-old son and manhandled him as he tried to capture the brazen attack by the Mumbai Police on camera.

READ | Arnab Goswami’s arrest a case of overdoing, sends wrong impression to the world: Former SG

READ | Arnab Goswami Arrested LIVE Updates: Bombay HC to hear both sides at 3 PM tomorrow

After the arrest, Maharashtra Police took him to Alibag Police Station and stated that he has been arrested under charges of abetment of suicide in the 2018 Anvay Naik case - which was closed in 2019 but has now been reopened. Apart from harassing Arnab at his own residence, the cops also blocked Republic Executive Editor Niranjan Narayanswamy and Senior Associate Editor Sanjay Pathak from entering Arnab's residence. When Niranjan said that it is his right to report, he was thrown out of the building and the Mumbai Police attempted to take away his phone.

READ | In TRP case, OpIndia to hand over witness coercion tapes to CBI on November 6 at 2 pm

READ | OTV, Prag News & News Live newsrooms join Republic TV & Republic Bharat; Unite for Arnab