Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
29 views2 pages

Gautam Navlakha V. National Investigation Agency 2021 Date of Judgment: 12/05/2021 Judges: Justiceuday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph Facts of The Case

Uploaded by

Ojasvi Sharma

The Supreme Court ruled that Gautam Navlakha's 34 days of house arrest in 2018 could not be counted towards the 90-day period to file charges under the UAPA. While Navlakha was initially detained on August 28, 2018 and placed under house arrest, the Delhi High Court later ruled this detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of default bail, custody must be authorized by a magistrate, and home arrest does not qualify as permitted detention under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, the 90-day period began when Navlakha surrendered to the NIA in April 2020, not from the date of the earlier unconstitutional home arrest.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt

Gautam Navlakha V. National Investigation Agency 2021 Date of Judgment: 12/05/2021 Judges: Justiceuday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph Facts of The Case

Uploaded by

Ojasvi Sharma
29 views2 pages
The Supreme Court ruled that Gautam Navlakha's 34 days of house arrest in 2018 could not be counted towards the 90-day period to file charges under the UAPA. While Navlakha was initially detained on August 28, 2018 and placed under house arrest, the Delhi High Court later ruled this detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of default bail, custody must be authorized by a magistrate, and home arrest does not qualify as permitted detention under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, the 90-day period began when Navlakha surrendered to the NIA in April 2020, not from the date of the earlier unconstitutional home arrest.

Original Title

13

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

The Supreme Court ruled that Gautam Navlakha's 34 days of house arrest in 2018 could not be counted towards the 90-day period to file charges under the UAPA. While Navlakha was initially detained on August 28, 2018 and placed under house arrest, the Delhi High Court later ruled this detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of default bail, custody must be authorized by a magistrate, and home arrest does not qualify as permitted detention under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, the 90-day period began when Navlakha surrendered to the NIA in April 2020, not from the date of the earlier unconstitutional home arrest.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
29 views2 pages

Gautam Navlakha V. National Investigation Agency 2021 Date of Judgment: 12/05/2021 Judges: Justiceuday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph Facts of The Case

Uploaded by

Ojasvi Sharma
The Supreme Court ruled that Gautam Navlakha's 34 days of house arrest in 2018 could not be counted towards the 90-day period to file charges under the UAPA. While Navlakha was initially detained on August 28, 2018 and placed under house arrest, the Delhi High Court later ruled this detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of default bail, custody must be authorized by a magistrate, and home arrest does not qualify as permitted detention under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, the 90-day period began when Navlakha surrendered to the NIA in April 2020, not from the date of the earlier unconstitutional home arrest.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Gautam Navlakha v.

National Investigation Agency 2021

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2021

JUDGES: JusticeUday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Gautam Navalakha was originally detained under Section 167 of the CrPC on August 28,
2018, and appeared before a Delhi court for remand to be brought to Pune in connection with
a FIR filed there under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
 The transit remand was stayed by the Delhi high court on the same day, preventing him from
being transferred to Maharashtra. The high court also placed him under home arrest by the
same decision. The home arrest lasted 34 days, after which the Delhi high court declared his
detention unconstitutional.
 In the meantime, the Bombay high court declined to dismiss the FIR filed against him. After
his anticipatory bail application was denied by the high court on February 14, 2020, the
Supreme Court ordered him to surrender within three weeks on March 16, 2020, which was
extended by one week on April 8, 2020 owing to the COVID-19 epidemic. On April 14,
2020, he surrendered to the NIA.
 He requested default bail on the grounds that the NIA had failed to file a chargesheet or seek
an extension of time within the 90-day statutory period of his custody. On July 12, 2020, the
NIA special court, before which the application for default bail was brought, rejected the
application. Navlakha filed an appeal with the Bombay high court, contesting the NIA
special court's decision.
 The NIA filed a chargesheet against Navlakha on October 9, 2020. On February 8, 2021, the
Bombay high court denied Navlakha's appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. Thus,
Navlakha's imprisonment encompassed 34 days of house arrest in 2018, 11 days of NIA
detention in April 2020, and judicial detention from April 25 to June 28, 2020, all of which
plainly surpassed the required period of 90 days, allowing him to be released on default bail.
 On June 29, 2020, the NIA applied to the NIA special court for an extension of time to file
the chargesheet. Navlakha was not allowed to meet anyone save his lawyers and the regular
inhabitants of the house during his house arrest.
 He was unable to leave the premises. Outside the residence, two Delhi Police special cell
guards were supposed to be stationed. The Pune Police, who were investigating the matter
before the NIA took it over in January of last year, had no access to him and no opportunity
to question him. Navalakha could not be deemed to be in police custody for investigation
because the transit remand order was stayed.
 He filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking default bail and wanted to include in his
wrongful detention for 34 days in 2018 when calculating the time limit for submitting a
chargesheet under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

1
ISSUE

Whether the time spent in detention during home arrest qualifies as custody for default bail
purposes?

JUDGMENT

The custody of the accused must be authorised by the Magistrate in order to claim the benefit of
default bail. The detention was illegal because the magistrate's authorization had been found
invalid. Under section 167(2) of the CrPC, home arrest cannot be considered permitted detention.
Despite the fact that the accused may have been brought into custody earlier, the bench
determined that the 90-day period shall begin only from the day of remand and not from any
earlier date. The court decided that the period from August 28, 2018 to October 1, 2018 while he
was under house arrest had to be removed.

You might also like