AGARTALA, Sep 7 (TIWN): Similar cases' different judgements in India continue to rise confusion about law and various legal interpretations in this country. When in renowned TV Journalist, Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami's case Supreme Court had given interim bail to him in a suicide case even after his name was written by the deceased, in Sushant Singh murder case Rhea Chakraborty was jailed without any suicide not. Again in Tripura, a psychiatrics patient girl's suicide note got highest importance before the law fully sidelining deceased girl's mother's statement who has protested against the politically motivated arrest of veteran leader Panna Deb.

Due to such varies in various judgements throughout India, citizens are rapidly losing trust over the judiciary.

Tripura Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Panna Deb on Tuesday has been produced before the Court. TMC state leader Subal Bhowmik and other members of the party were present in the West District Magistrate's Court in her Court producing time.  However, West District Magistrate Court has sent Panna Deb to 14 days jail custody after she suffered from 3 days police custody.

The way the case is going on, it looks like after 3 months jail only, she can come out. 

TMC has raised question over role of Women Commission as Women Commission has been appointed against Panna Deb.

Meanwhile Chief Minister Biplab Deb in a public rally said that all TMC workers, leaders in Tripura will be soon arrested.

Supreme Court Judgement on November 11, 2020 in Arnab Goswami's case : The Supreme Court on November 11 ordered the Maharashtra government to forthwith release Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami and two others on interim bail in an abetment to suicide case, saying personal liberty is increasingly becoming a casualty in the country.

“People are now put in jail for a tweet... We are travelling through the path of destruction of liberty. You may not like his ideology. Left to myself, I will not watch his channel. But citizens are sent to jail, high courts don’t grant bail. We have to send a strong message,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading the Bench, orally observed.  The Bench, also comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, directed Mr. Goswami and two others to execute a personal bond of ?50,000 each with the jail superintendent. The court said they should co-operate with the probe and not influence witnesses.

“We are deeply concerned. If this is how human liberty is persecuted, the Supreme Court has to be there for every person... We are getting cases for personal liberty in multitudes... Our democracy is extraordinarily resilient. Our point is governments should ignore them [taunts on TV]. You think what they say makes any difference in the elections?” Justice Chandrachud observed.  The court asked the Maharashtra government whether custodial interrogation of Mr. Goswami was really necessary in a case of abetment to suicide in which a person may have taken his own life under financial stress.  “There has to be an active incitement to make a case of abetment to suicide. A person has not paid — does this amount to an act of incitement to suicide? Can a person be sent to custodial interrogation, whoever it is...” Justice Chandrachud asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Maharashtra.

“In 99 out of 100 cases concerning personal liberty, I appear on the other side,” Mr. Sibal commented.  “All the more reason that what we do today has to define what we will do in those 99 cases,” Justice Chandrachud replied.