#BombayHighCourt begins hearing the plea filed by Arnab Goswami challenging his illegal arrest and detention by the Raigad Police in the first week of November 2020.

Bench of Justice SS Shinde and MS Karnik are hearing the matter.

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda apprises the court of the development in the case after the passing of the Supreme Court judgment of November 27.

https://t.co/lGH4nQd6uy
Ponda submits that the chargesheet was hastily filed after the Supreme Court order so that the present plea will become infructuous.

Ponda: Justice Chandrachud’s judgment is my best argument.
Ponda submits that Supreme Court observed in the order offence under Section 306 of IPC was not prima facie attracted.

Court: But that also means that the case is still open.

The observations of the SC are prima facie.
Justice Shinde asks Ponda to read the relevant portion of the order where the Supreme Court discussed on the facts of the case.

Ponda begins reading paragraph 66 of the judgment.
Court: Earlier there was lack of clarity on grant of interim bail and now with this judgment, bail can be granted under Art .226. So this will guide us.

Ponda: I am not asking for quashing the chargesheet based on SC order, but the judgment has to be respected.
Ponda interrupts the hearing to point out that the Alibaug Magistrate has taken cognizance of the chargesheet filed.
The chargesheet has been filed in the abetment to suicide case of interior designer Anvay Naik.

Ponda asks the leave of court to amend the petition so as to bring on record the chargesheet after it will be served on them by the Raigad police.

Court grants such leave.
Amendment to be carried out within 2 weeks.

Court directs that the copy of the chargesheet should be served upon Goswami at the earliest.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai arguing for the State asks for the Court to dispose off the interim application seeking directions to the Alibaug Magistrate to not take cognizance of the chargesheet till the plea is heard.

Ponda opposes such request.
Court says that they will consider this issue on the next hearing date.
Sr Adv Prasad Dhakelphalkar appearing for Nitesh Sarda intervenes and point out that he does not want to to be involved in with the high profile personalities.

Dhakephalkar: If I stay away from the high flying personalities it will be better for my case.
Dhakephalkar: These are independent transactions, and should be dealt with differently.

Court: So you do not want to amend the petition?

Dhakephalkar: NO milords.

Court: Ok so leave to amend in other petitions not in yours.

More from Bar & Bench

More from Court

1) God bless the State of Texas and @KenPaxtonTX What he has just done gives us every chance to save our Republic and our country.

Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by

2) another state is one of those instances.

https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh

Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to


3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”

@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were

4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”

The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting

5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but

You May Also Like