News Analysis India

Tag: Gautam Navlakha

  • Elgar Parishad case: Supreme Court allows house arrest request of activist Gautam Navlakha

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed jailed activist Gautam Navlakha’s request for house arrest, saying prima facie there is no reason to reject his medical report.

    A bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said the house arrest order should be implemented within 48 hours.

    The bench also directed Navlakha to deposit Rs 2.4 lakh, an estimated amount which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) claims as expense for making available police personnel.

    It also said that Navlakha will not be allowed to use a computer and internet during his month-long house arrest.

    The 70-year-old activist is in jail in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist link case.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed jailed activist Gautam Navlakha’s request for house arrest, saying prima facie there is no reason to reject his medical report.

    A bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said the house arrest order should be implemented within 48 hours.

    The bench also directed Navlakha to deposit Rs 2.4 lakh, an estimated amount which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) claims as expense for making available police personnel.

    It also said that Navlakha will not be allowed to use a computer and internet during his month-long house arrest.

    The 70-year-old activist is in jail in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist link case.

  • Corrupt people are destroying the country, get away with corruption: SC

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Navlakha, submitted that medical reports show that his treatment inside the jail is not possible and his client had alarming weight loss.

  • Bhima Koregaon case: Justice Ravindra Bhat withdraws from hearing plea of Gautam Navlakha

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat on Monday recused from hearing jailed activist Gautam Navlakha’s plea that he be placed under house custody instead of judicial custody in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case.

    As the hearing started, Justice Bhat, who was on the bench with Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, expressed his inability to be part of the hearing but did not elaborate on the reason.

    The 70-year-old activist has appealed to the top court against the April 26 order of the Bombay High Court dismissing his plea.

    The high court had said that his apprehensions about the lack of medical aid and inadequate basic facilities at the Taloja prison, where he is currently lodged as an undertrial, were “ill-founded.”

    Recently, 82-year-old activist P Varavara Rao was granted bail in the case by the apex court.

    “Justice Bhat cannot hear. This case is not to be listed before a bench with Justice Bhat. List before me on the administrative side. This case was listed before me and Justice KM Joseph last. We will have this case listed before a bench with Justice Joseph,” the CJI said in the order on Navlakha’s appeal.

    ALSO READ | ‘Hypertension, diabetes are common’: NIA opposes activist Gautam Navlakha’s plea for house arrest

    Navlakha had told the high court that Taloja prison is overcrowded and the conditions and environment of the jail are not compatible with his health.

    “The case of the petitioner does not fit in any of the criteria (provided for by SC). The apprehension of the petitioner that he will not be provided medical aid and his life will be miserable in unhygienic conditions and atmosphere of the prison seems to be ill-founded,” the high court had said.

    Navlakha had approached HC earlier saying that the Taloja prison had poor facilities.

    He had said that he had been denied a chair, a pair of slippers, his spectacles, and a PG Wodehouse book by the prison superintendent.

    Navlakha had also said that the prison toilets were dirty and while in prison, his health condition had deteriorated.

    Besides Rao, the only accused on bail in the case is an activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj.

    The Bombay High Court had granted relief to Bharadwaj last year.

    The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city.

    The Pune Police had also claimed that the conclave was organised by people with alleged Maoist links.

    The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the probe in the matter.

    Several activists and academicians have been arrested in the case including Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira and Gautam Navlakha.

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat on Monday recused from hearing jailed activist Gautam Navlakha’s plea that he be placed under house custody instead of judicial custody in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case.

    As the hearing started, Justice Bhat, who was on the bench with Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, expressed his inability to be part of the hearing but did not elaborate on the reason.

    The 70-year-old activist has appealed to the top court against the April 26 order of the Bombay High Court dismissing his plea.

    The high court had said that his apprehensions about the lack of medical aid and inadequate basic facilities at the Taloja prison, where he is currently lodged as an undertrial, were “ill-founded.”

    Recently, 82-year-old activist P Varavara Rao was granted bail in the case by the apex court.

    “Justice Bhat cannot hear. This case is not to be listed before a bench with Justice Bhat. List before me on the administrative side. This case was listed before me and Justice KM Joseph last. We will have this case listed before a bench with Justice Joseph,” the CJI said in the order on Navlakha’s appeal.

    ALSO READ | ‘Hypertension, diabetes are common’: NIA opposes activist Gautam Navlakha’s plea for house arrest

    Navlakha had told the high court that Taloja prison is overcrowded and the conditions and environment of the jail are not compatible with his health.

    “The case of the petitioner does not fit in any of the criteria (provided for by SC). The apprehension of the petitioner that he will not be provided medical aid and his life will be miserable in unhygienic conditions and atmosphere of the prison seems to be ill-founded,” the high court had said.

    Navlakha had approached HC earlier saying that the Taloja prison had poor facilities.

    He had said that he had been denied a chair, a pair of slippers, his spectacles, and a PG Wodehouse book by the prison superintendent.

    Navlakha had also said that the prison toilets were dirty and while in prison, his health condition had deteriorated.

    Besides Rao, the only accused on bail in the case is an activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj.

    The Bombay High Court had granted relief to Bharadwaj last year.

    The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city.

    The Pune Police had also claimed that the conclave was organised by people with alleged Maoist links.

    The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the probe in the matter.

    Several activists and academicians have been arrested in the case including Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira and Gautam Navlakha.

  • NIA gets 2 weeks to reply on pleas of Bharadwaj, Navlakha seeking clone copies of all seized devices

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday granted two weeks’ time to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to file its reply on the petitions of activists Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha, both accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, seeking clone copies of all the electronic devices seized from them by the central agency.

    Bharadwaj and Navlakha had approached the high court last month seeking such copies.

    On August 20, the high court had directed the NIA to file its reply over it.

    On Friday, however, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh told a bench of Justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar that the NIA’s reply was “almost ready” and sought an additional two weeks’ time to file it.

    The bench granted the central agency additional time after Singh said that it will continue with its oral statement made on the last date that charges in the Elgar Parishad-Maoists links case will not be framed before the special NIA court in the city until the next date before the high court on the above pleas.

    Last month, the NIA had submitted draft charges before the special court and the latter had scheduled the matter for framing of charges on August 23.

    Bharadwaj, Navlakha and some other co-accused in the case had sought clone copies of the electronic devices before framing of charges.

    The accused had at the time urged the special court to defer the framing of charges till their applications for clone copies are disposed of.

    After the special court refused to defer the framing of charges, Bharadwaj and Navlakha approached the high court.

    On Friday, their counsel, senior advocate Yug Chaudhry, told the bench that there existed some confusion on which electronic devices had been seized by the NIA from the accused and which copies should be handed over to them.

    He said the NIA must clarify the same in its reply.

    Singh, however, said the central agency would follow its own discretion in filing the reply and not the suggestion made by the petitioners.

    The high court accepted Singh’s statement on deferring the framing of charges in the case until the next date of hearing on the pleas.

    It said it would hear the pleas further on September 24.

  • Will get activist Navlakha medically examined, says Maharashtra government; HC seeks NIA’s reply on his plea for house arrest

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Maharashtra government told the Bombay High Court on Thursday that it will take jailed activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case case, for a medical check-up to the Tata Memorial Hospital in neighbouring Navi Mumbai on Friday.

    The state’s counsel, public prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde, made the statement before a bench of Justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar after Navlakha moved the HC earlier in the day, seeking directions to authorities of the Navi Mumbai-based Taloja prison, where he is currently lodged, to get him examined for a lump developed in his chest in March this year while in prison.

    In his plea, Navlakha, 69, also sought that he be placed under house arrest as part of his judicial custody, owing to his advanced age and a host medical ailments that he suffers from.

    Navlakha cited the Supreme Court’s order issued in May this year, whereby the apex court had dismissed his default bail plea, but found merit in treating house arrest as an alternative form of detention, especially for such undertrials who are aged or suffering from serious medical ailments.

    In his plea, Navlakha also said that with 15 people accused in the case, the charge sheet spanning over 30,000 pages and over 150 witnesses to be examined, to continue to subject him to incarceration till the completion of the trial would be extremely “unjust, harsh, and cruel”.

    The activist said he had always cooperated with the probe into the case and that he was a fit candidate for house arrest.

    Navlakha’s counsels Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy also told the HC that they had already written to the Taloja prison authorities seeking a medical check up for the lump in his chest, but were yet to hear anything from them.

    They told the HC that Navlakha also suffered from hypertension that he developed while in prison, and several other ailments.

    The activist in his plea claimed the Taloja prison was grossly inept at treating serious medical ailments suffered by inmates.

    He also claimed the Taloja prison staff had been callous towards the health and other needs of inmates in the past.

    The Taloja prison authorities had repeatedly acted in a “callous manner in the past, endangering the lives of the inmates, including the petitioner’s co-accused in the case,” Navlakha said in the plea.

    “Because of the negligence and stubborn refusal of officials of the Taloja prison, the ailments and medical concerns of inmates go undiagnosed and untreated for long periods of time,”, the plea said.

    Navlakha’s counsel Chaudhry urged the HC to allow the activist to be examined at the Mumbai-based Jaslok Hospital, a private medical facility, where his sister was an employee.

    Chaudhry said all expenses of the examination at the private hospital will be borne by Navlakha and his family.

    His request, however, was opposed by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is conducting a probe into the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

    Singh said that accused persons must not insist on going to a hospital of their choice and suggested that Navlakha be taken by the prison authorities to a state-run hospital.

    The state government then proposed to take Navlakha to the Tata Memorial Hospital at Kharghar in Navi Mumbai, which is closer to the Taloja prison.

    While Chaudhry said the NIA was being “vindictive”, the HC pointed out that Navlakha had not made a special pleading in the petition for getting examined at the Jaslok Hospital.

    The bench gave Chaudhry the option of filing an additional application, seeking that Navlakha be taken to the Jaslok Hospital.

    Chaudhry however, said he did not wish to waste any time and agreed to the state’s proposition of taking Navlakha to the Tata Memorial Hospital.

    “When your client tells you there is a lump which could possibly be cancer, you don’t want such delays,” Chaudhry told the high court.

    The bench then recorded public prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde’s statement that Navlakha will be taken for a medical examination on Friday.

    The HC also asked the NIA to file a reply to Navlakha’s prayer for house arrest and posted the matter for further hearing on September 27.

    Navlakha was arrested by Pune police from Delhi on August 28, 2018 in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

    He was initially kept under house arrest, but subsequently sent in judicial custody.

    As per Navlakha’s plea, he has spent one year and three months in prison in connection with the case.

    The case relates to the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Maharashtr’s Pune district on December 31, 2017.

    The Pune police had claimed that the event was backed by Maoists, and provocative speeches made there led to caste violence near the Bhima-Koregaon war memorial in the district the next day.

  • ED allowed to record jailed activist Gautam Navlakha’s statement in case against news portal

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: A special NIA court here on Wednesday allowed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to record a statement of activist Gautam Navlakha, arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, in its money laundering probe against ‘Newsclick’, a news website.

    Navlakha is currently lodged in Taloja Jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai. The ED had filed an application before the special National Investigation Agency court seeking to record his statement in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act case filed against the website.

    Judge DE Kothalikar granted the agency’s plea. Following a First Information Report (FIR) registered by Delhi Police against Newsclick, the ED registered a money laundering case against the portal with regard to `suspicious’ foreign funding.

    In February this year, the ED raided the website’s office and properties of its promoters in Delhi. Navlakha is among several activists arrested in connection with Elgar Parishad, a conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017.

    Pune Police had claimed that inflammatory speeches at the event triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial, and the conclave had been backed by Maoists. The case was later taken over by the NIA.

  • SC dismisses bail plea of activist Gautam Navlakha in Bhima Koregaon case

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: In a setback to civil rights activist Gautam Navlakha, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed his plea seeking bail in the alleged Elgar Parishad-Maoist link case of Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra.

    The apex court examined the technical grounds raised by Navlakha for the default bail as the charge sheet in the case was not filed by the NIA within the stipulated period of 90 days which also include 34 days of his house arrest.

    The activist had challenged the Bombay High Court order denying him bail on the same grounds.

    While deliberating with his appeal, the top court said that the personal liberty perhaps is the most important of all values recognized as such under the constitution and “it is to be jealously guarded from any encroachment, save where such intrusion has the clear sanction of law”.

    A bench of Justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph in its 206 page-verdict said, “In view of the fact that the house arrest of the appellant was not purported to be under Section 167 (of CrpC) and cannot be treated as passed thereunder, we dismiss the appeal.”

    Under CrPC, section 167 provides for procedures when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours and powers of magistrate to authorise custody of a person.

    The bench, which dealt with various aspects of custody and its impact said that the right to life and personal liberty is essentially also based on the principle that men in regard to fundamental rights be treated equal and that no man or a group of men, even organized as a state under which he lives can deprive him except without infringing the right to be treated equally unless there is a legitimate sanction of law.

    “Personal liberty of its members must continue to remain the most cherished goal of any civilized state and its interference with the same must be confined to those cases where it is sanctioned by the law and genuinely needed. The court would lean in favour of upholding this precious, inalienable and immutable value,” it said.

    Dealing with earlier orders of the top court and the High Court, it said, “That house arrest, in turn, involved, deprivation of liberty and will fall within the embrace of custody under Section 167 of the CrPC, was not apparently in the minds of both this Court and the High Court of Delhi. This is our understanding of the orders passed by the court.”

    The bench said that it is confronted with a clash between the two values as on the one hand; there is the deprivation, in law, of the liberty of Navlakha, by way of house arrest for 34 days, while on the other hand, it does not fall actually in the facts of this case within the ambit of Section 167 of the CrPC.

    “While, the Right to default bail is a Fundamental Right, it is subject to the conditions, obtaining in Section 167 of the CrPC, being satisfied. It must be purported to be passed under Section 167 CrPC. The right to statutory bail arises dehors the merits of the case. The fundamental right arises when the conditions are fulfilled,” the bench said.

    The top court also held that if the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus petition can be filed.

    “Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner, the person affected can seek the remedy of Habeas Corpus. Barring such situations, a Habeas Corpus petition will not lie”, it ruled.

    The bench said that the nature of detention, being one under Section 167 is indispensable to count the period.

    “We are of the view, that in the facts of this case, the house arrest was not ordered purporting to be under Section 167. It cannot be treated as having being passed under Section 167 of CrPC,” the top court said.

    Dealing with house arrest, the top court said that the High Court in the impugned order has itself found that the period of 34 days spent in house arrest by the appellant amounted to custody.

    The top court also referred to “fairly alarming” conditions of jails and prisoners of the country and cited National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data of 2019.

    “A perusal of the executive summary would reveal an alarming state of affairs as far as occupancy rate is concerned. It has climbed to 118.5 percent in 2019 as on 31st December. The occupancy rate is alarming for male prisoners. In fact, during 2019, a total of 18,86,092 inmates were admitted in the jails”, it said.

    It said that “there is a tremendous amount of overcrowding in jails in India” and “Delhi had the highest occupancy rate of 174.9 percent followed by Uttar Pradesh which came second with 167.9 percent. This means that in Delhi a prison which was meant to be occupied by 100 persons, was used for accommodating 174 persons. We cannot also be oblivious to the fact that the figures represent the official version.”

    The bench said that when a citizen is placed on house arrest, which has the effect of depriving him of any freedom, it will not only be custody but it would involve depriving citizens under custody of the fundamental freedoms unless such freedoms are specifically protected.

    The FIR against him was re-registered in January 2020, and Navlakha had surrendered before the NIA on April 14, last year.

    According to the prosecution, some activists allegedly made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad meet in Pune on December 31, 2017, which triggered violence at Koregaon Bhima in the district the next day.

  • SC reserves order on Gautam Navlaka’s bail plea in Bhima Koregaon case

    By ANI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its order on a petition filed by Gautam Navlakha, an accused in Bhima Koregaon violence case, challenging the Bombay High Court order rejecting his plea for default bail.

    A three-judge bench headed by Justice UU Lalit reserved the order after hearing arguments from counsels appearing for Navlakha and NIA.

    The High Court had rejected Navlakha’s plea on February 8 saying that the period for which an accused is under illegal detention cannot be taken into account while computing the 90-day custody period for grant of default bail.

    Navlakha, in the apex court, has sought bail on the ground that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to file its charge-sheet within the prescribed upper-limit of 90 days as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

    He stated that the period for which he was confined to his house under house arrest should be calculated as part of judicial custody and should be taken into account while deciding the custody period under Section 167(2).

    He had sought bail from the High Court on the same grounds. Last year, a special court had rejected his application for default bail.

    Navlakha, one of the several civil liberties activists in the Bhima Koregaon case, has been booked under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for an alleged conspiracy to topple the government. 

  • Bhima Koregaon case: SC to hear bail plea of activist Gautam Navlakha on Monday

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the bail plea of activist Gautam Navlakha in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist link case.

    A bench, comprising justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph, had on March 15 asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to file its response on the bail plea of the activist, and decided to hear the same on March 22.

    The apex court had taken note of the submission of Additional Solicitor General S V Raju that NIA be granted some more time to file its response to the plea.

    The activist had moved the top court on February 19 against the Bombay High Court order of February 8 dismissing his bail plea.

    Navlakha has been seeking statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the ground that the NIA did not file the charge sheet within the stipulated 90-day period, making him entitled for grant of default bail.

    The high court, however, had held that the 34 days of Navlakha’s house arrest cannot be computed as the time spent in jail for granting him statutory bail.

    It had said that “it sees no reason to interfere with a special court’s order which earlier rejected his bail plea”.

    According to police, some activists allegedly made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad meet in Pune on December 31, 2017, which triggered violence at Koregaon Bhima in the district the next day.

    Police also alleged that the event was backed by some Maoist groups.

    The NIA is conducting a probe into the case.

    Navlakha had approached the high court last year, challenging the special NIA court’s order of July 12, 2020 that rejected his plea for statutory bail.

    On December 16 last year, the high court bench reserved its verdict on the plea filed by Navlakha, seeking statutory or default bail on grounds that he had been in custody for over 90 days, but the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet in the case within this period.

    The NIA had argued that his plea was not maintainable, and sought an extension to file the charge sheet.

    The special court had then accepted NIA’s plea seeking extension of 90 to 180 days to file the charge sheet against Navlakha and co-accused, activist Anand Teltumbde.

    Navlakha’s counsel had told the high court that the NIA was granted the extension to file its charge sheet.

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had said Navlakha had already spent 93 days in custody, including 34 days of house arrest, and that the high court must count the house arrest as a period of custody.

    While he was under house arrest, Navlakha’s personal liberties remained curtailed, Sibal had said.

    However, Additional Solicitor General Raju, who appeared for the NIA, had argued that Navlakha’s house arrest could not be included in the time spent in the custody of police or NIA, or under judicial custody.

    Raju argued that the Pune police arrested Navlakha in August 2018, but had not taken him into custody.

    He had said the accused remained under house arrest, and the Delhi High Court quashed his arrest and remand order in October 2018.

    The FIR against him was re-registered in January 2020, and Navlakha surrendered before the NIA on April 14.

    He spent 11 days in the NIA’s custody till April 25, and since then has been in judicial custody in the Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

    Raju had argued that if the court “looked from the other angle, it would see that if he (Navlakha) was arrested on August 28, 2018, he should have been enlarged on bail”.

    “He was a free man till April 2020. He was neither on bail nor in custody. There cannot be a gap in the custody and detention period,” he added.

  • Bhima Koregaon case: SC asks NIA to file reply on Gautam Navlakha’s bail plea by March 19

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday asked NIA to file response by March 19 on the bail plea of activist Gautam Navlakha in the alleged Elgar Parishad-Maoist link case.

    A bench comprising justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph took note of the submission of Additional Solicitor General S V Raju that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) be granted time to file its response to Navlakha’s bail plea and fixed the case for hearing on March 22.

    The activist had moved the top court on February 19 against the Bombay High Court order of February 8 dismissing his bail plea.

    Navlakha has been seeking statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the ground that the NIA did not file the charge sheet within the stipulated 90-day period making him entitled for grant of default bail.

    The high court, however, had held that the 34 days of Navlakha’s house arrest cannot be computed as the time spent in jail for granting him statutory bail.

    The high court had said that “it sees no reason to interfere with a special court’s order which earlier rejected his bail plea”.

    According to police, some activists allegedly made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad meet in Pune on December 31, 2017, which triggered violence at Koregaon Bhima in the district the next day.

    Police also alleged that the event was backed by some Maoist groups.

    The NIA is conducting a probe into the case.

    Navlakha had approached the high court last year, challenging the special NIA court’s order of July 12, 2020 that rejected his plea for statutory bail.

    On December 16 last year, the high court bench reserved its verdict on the plea filed by Navlakha, seeking statutory or default bail on grounds that he had been in custody for over 90 days, but the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet in the case within this period.

    The NIA had argued that his plea was not maintainable, and sought an extension to file the charge sheet.

    The special court had then accepted NIA’s plea seeking extension of 90 to 180 days to file the charge sheet against Navlakha and his co-accused, activist Anand Teltumbde.

    Navlakha’s counsel had told the high court that the NIA was granted the extension to file its charge sheet.

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had said Navlakha had already spent 93 days in custody, including 34 days of house arrest, and that the high court must count house arrest as a period of custody.

    While he was under house arrest, Navlakha’s personal liberties remained curtailed, Sibal had said.

    However, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who appeared for the NIA, had argued that Navlakha”s house arrest could not be included in the time spent in the custody of police or NIA, or under judicial custody.

    Raju argued that the Pune police arrested Navlakha in August 2018, but had not taken him into custody.

    He had said the accused remained under house arrest, and the Delhi High Court quashed his arrest and remand order in October 2018.

    The FIR against him was re-registered in January 2020, and Navlakha surrendered before the NIA on April 14.

    He spent 11 days in the NIA’s custody till April 25, and since then he has been in judicial custody in the Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

    Raju had argued that if the court “looked from the other angle, it would see that if he (Navlakha) was arrested on August 28, 2018, he should have been enlarged on bail.

    ””He was a free man till April 2020. He was neither on bail nor in custody. There cannot be a gap in the custody and detention period,” Raju had said.