Gautam Navlakha was arrested at the Bhima-Koregaon event, accused under penal laws and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). He sought bail from the Delhi High Court, which was denied, resulting in house arrest. Navlakha claimed his house arrest should count as 'custody' for bail purposes under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but the Supreme Court rejected this plea.
Gautam Navlakha, a human rights activist and journalist, was arrested following the Bhima-Koregaon event, celebrating the Dalits' victory over the Peshwas on December 31, 2017. Violence erupted on January 1, 2018, leading to arrests under various laws. An FIR was filed against Navlakha on January 8, 2018, with more charges under UAPA following on March 6, 2018. Allegations connected the violence to a plot against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Navlakha's arrest in Delhi on August 28, 2018, led to house arrest by the Delhi High Court.
A writ petition to the Supreme Court claimed the arrests were to suppress dissent. The Supreme Court refused an independent investigation but extended Navlakha's house arrest. The Delhi High Court later deemed his arrest unfair, prompting Navlakha to seek FIR dismissal in the Bombay High Court, which was denied. Further appeals to higher courts for bail were rejected, leading to judicial custody. Navlakha's plea that his house arrest duration should count as custody for bail under Section 167 of CrPC was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether house arrest qualifies as 'custody'. It ruled that house arrest can be considered 'custody' in certain cases, based on the accused's age, mental and physical health, and crime circumstances. Navlakha argued his house arrest should count as custody since police conducted investigations during this period. The NIA countered that without bail, house arrest couldn't be deemed custody.
The Supreme Court held that Navlakha's house arrest, ordered by the Delhi High Court and not a magistrate as required under Section 167 of CrPC, doesn't count towards the 90-day period needed for default bail. Thus, Navlakha's house arrest wasn't included for bail consideration under Section 167, and habeas corpus wasn't applicable as a remedy.
Leave a comment