The Bombay High Court on Monday rejected the criminal appeal by Gautam Navlakha, accused in the Elgaar Parishad case, against the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court’s July 12, 2020 ruling that rejected his default bail plea. Navlakha (69) is currently lodged at Taloja Central jail.
“We have gone through the order passed by the Special Judge, NIA. We see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Special NIA Judge. The appeal stands dismissed,” the HC held.
You’ve Read Your Free Stories For Now
Sign up and keep reading more stories that matter to you.
The court on December 16, 2020 had concluded hearing arguments and reserved its ruling on Navlakha’s plea.
Navlakha had sought default bail on the grounds that NIA, the investigating agency, had failed to file a chargesheet within the stipulated period of 90 days. The NIA, however, claimed that the period of 34 days of Navlakha’s house arrest between August 29 and October 1, 2018, was termed ‘illegal’ by the Delhi High Court and hence it cannot be included in the period of detention.
A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and M S Karnik, which was hearing Navlakha’s plea, was informed by senior counsel Kapil Sibal that the ‘house arrest’ in 2018 had restricted Navlakha and therefore his plea for default bail under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was valid.
“If 34 days (of house arrest) are counted, the NIA’s application is beyond 90 days and the same is not maintainable and therefore Navlakha is entitled to default bail. He has cumulatively spent 93 days in custody,” Sibal argued. However, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the NIA, opposed the plea stating that the period of ‘house arrest’ cannot be counted as the date of production of accused before the magistrate. The HC noted that the bone of contention is the period of 34 days which the appellant was under custody (house arrest).
“Undoubtedly, this period has to be regarded as custody as the appellant admittedly was under house arrest. However, in our opinion, the intervening orders (including Delhi HC) passed would be relevant for determining the nature of this custody for the purpose of Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to enable the appellant to claim default bail,” the bench stated.
Story continues below this ad
In light of this, the HC observed, “It is not possible for us to fathom a situation where detention of the appellant though held to be illegal and unlawful rendering the authorisation by the magistrate untenable should still be construed as an authorised detention for the purpose of Section 167 (2) of the CrPC. In our view sans any valid authorisation/order of the magistrate detaining the appellant, the incumbent will not be entitled to a default bail.”
“Resultantly we hold that the period from 28.08.2018 to 01.10.2018 has to be excluded from computing the period of 90 days as the said custody has been held to be unsustainable in law by the High Court of Delhi,” Justice M S Karnik who authored 35-page judgment noted.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
