Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Reserves Order On Gautam Navlakha's Plea For Default Bail

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its order on a plea filed by senior journalist and activist Gautam Navlakha, against an order of the Bombay High Court denying him default bail in the Bhima Koregaon case. The Bench comprising of Justice UU Lalit and Justice KM Joseph said that it will release the order after 7th April, as Justice Joseph is not available until then. During the hearing, the Bench observed that the first two days, the period of seeking transit remand for Navlakha, will "definitely be accounted" to calculate period of custody. However, the question remains as to whether the period of house arrest can be considered under Section 167 (2) of CrPC. The Court brushed aside the submission made by ASG Raju, appearing for the NIA, that the period of transit will not be included in the 90 days period. "As we are presently given to say, first 2 days will definitely be accounted to calculate period of custody. We are on nature of continued custody. First point is what is nature of first 2 days when you seek transit remand. Why don't you focus on the second point as that is bulk of the period," the Bench remarked orally. Courtroom Exchange Does house arrest amount to Custody? The primary bone of contention in the matter is whether the 34 days period of Navlakha's house arrest between August 29 to October 1, 2018, can be included in his period of detention for the purpose of granting default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the Petitioner argued that Navlakha was placed under house arrest, following an order of the court, therefore it would be termed as judicial custody and the said period is to be included in the 90 days period under Section 167(2). When the Bench asked Sibal as to in whose custody a person under house arrest is, Sibal submitted, "Judicial custody. Nature of custody has changed." ASG Raju on the other hand argued that the orders of the High Court keeping Navlakha under house arrest were not passed under CrPC but in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the same cannot be included to compute 90 days period under Section 167. "The exercise by HC and SC wasn't under CrPC. It was under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, they aren't orders under CrPC," he argued. Raju further pointed out that Navlakha was surrendered on 14th April 2020 whereafter he was produced at a NIA Court in Delhi. There, Navlakha moved for anticipatory bail. "If he was in custody or arrested, he'd have been bailed out. The fact is that accused applied for anticipatory bail before Session court, High Court and Supreme Court, and all the Courts didn't entertain it," Raju submitted. He insisted that these earlier proceedings must be read according to subsequent proceedings. "If your anticipatory bail is rejected, the date of earlier arrest of 28 August becomes insignificant," he argued. He added, "They accepted the fact that arrest commenced from 14th when he surrendered and not from 28th of August. He himself accepted. This acceptance is by conduct. One conduct is by filing anticipatory bail application." The Bench on the other hand contemplated that if Sibal's submissions are accepted, then any discovery made during the police investigation in this case would become fractured. "If he was put in 34 days of custody already, he could never have been given police custody? So logically if his submission is accepted, and there is some discovery in police investigation that would be completely fractured.? The moment you say police custody cannot be granted after 30 days, and if in this case police custody is granted, every recovery made then would be a fractured discovery. We are just trying to test the combination, to see where logic leads us," the Bench remarked. Nothing prevented Police from interrogating: Sibal During his arguments, Sibal insisted that nothing precluded the investigating officers from saying that they want to interrogate Navlakha. The Bench however opined that if Sibal's submission is accepted that house arrest is to be taken as custody, then Navlakha will be entitled to reconcile that period. "Can we do that as a Judicial organ. That will be altering course of Section 167 CrPC," the bench remarked. However, Sibal insisted that nothing during the said period prevented the Police from moving the Court. "In facts if this case they had all time to investigate him police remand. The order the Court is interpreting did not mean police from Pune cannot seek remand. It intended to mean others cannot meet him," he argued. The Bench asked Sibal that if supposedly the transit had come into effect and Navlakha was transferred from Delhi to Bombay and produced there, would in his opinion this period of 2 days would also be a part of 90 days under Section 167. Responding in the affirmative, Sibal submitted, "Yes! Because he was in custody. ...

Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Reserves Order On Gautam Navlakha's Plea For Default Bail

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags