#SupremeCourt to begin hearing plea by Gautam Navlakha, accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence, challenging the rejection of his plea for default bail by Bombay High Court at 10:30 am
Navlakha has sought bail on the ground that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to file its chargesheet within the prescribed upper-limit of 90 days as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
The question before the Bombay High Court was whether the period of custody spent during house arrest constituted 'custody' for the purposes of section 167(2) of CrPC.
Senior Adv Kapil Sibal: this incident arises from the Bhima Koregaon event. Group of eminent persons included Justice Patil held an event to commemorate the Bhima Koregaon anniversary
Sibal: It was August 22, 2018, when name of Navlakha was included in the FIR. When I was arrested on the 28th of August I was arrested from Delhi and produced before CMM Saket and there was an order of transit remand.
Sibal: Transit remand was granted that day and that very day habeas corpus was moved. Then matter was taken up at 4 pm. 2:15 he was already taken to the magistrate.
@KapilSibal : This interim order was extended. In the meantime Romila Thapar and others filed a writ in Delhi High Court
Sibal: This order of house arrest kept on getting extended again and again. Court says interim order order will continue till the pronouncement of judgment. Delhi HC on October 1 quashed the petitioners arrest. #SupremeCourt
Sibal: He remained under house arrest for 34 days. HC sets out the short point for consideration, there are three periods in relation to him being detained.
Sibal: If you take all three into account it is 93 days. We say chargesheet was filed after 90th day and thus Navlakha ought to be released on default bail

Justice Lalit: When was chargesheet filed ?
Justice Lalit: if we hold that this 34 days do not count then we can say application for interim extension was within time

Sibal: Yes then the plea does not survive
Justice KM Joseph: You were saying Delhi HC set it aside. Where is it?
@KapilSibal : HC said detention was illegal thus it could not be said to authorized custody. Both reasons according to me is legally unsustainable. HC order is in pursuance of a transit remand.
Sibal: It was in furtherance of remand and in pursuance of remand and not dehors it
Justice Lalit: We are on August 29 order. Where is that ?
Justice Lalit: so the next order stayed the trasnsit remand and continued the house arrest. Right ?

Sibal: Yes. Then the case was stayed on October 1
Justice Lalit: We have to see what is the kind of house arrest, whether police custody or not.

Sibal: High Court has relied on a judgment that has no application to the case - the Dalmia case [2007 5 SCC]
Bench consults between themselves.
What prevented the police from asking for his custody for 2-3 days? Sibal asks

If we accept your submission that house arrest has to be taken as custody, the accused is entitled to reconcile the period, Justice UU Lalit
As a judicial organ, can we do that? We will be altering the entire course of 167 CrPC: Justice Lalit
What prevented the police from approaching the courts and asking for police custody of Navlakha? Sibal asks
Sibal refers to judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate his case
In this case, they had all the time to interrogate Navlakha while he was in police remand.

High Court order did not mean that Mumbai Police could not interrogate him, Sibal
Would two-day period of transit from Delhi to Mumbai be part of the 90-day custody period under 167 CrPC? Justice Joseph asks.

Two-day period will not be excluded, it was part of 90-day period, Sibal responds.
We see the point there: Justice Lalit.
ASG SV Raju begins submissions for State.
Raju states that Navlakha was granted interim protection from various courts at various times, so couldn't be interrogated by the police.
The orders passed by the High Courts and Supreme Court keeping him in custody were not orders under Section 167 CrPC. Thus, these periods cannot be counted as part of the 90-day period: Raju
As per Dalmia's judgment, the time taken to produce him before jurisdictional court does not count towards calculation of 90-day limit for remand: Raju
Court explains how Dalmia case is different from Navlakha case.

If he is still in your custody, could he walk away? Should not that period be considered as part of 90 days? Justice Lalit says
Could you have not interrogated him while he was under house arrest? That is the issue, Justice Lalit says
Sibal begins rejoinder submissions. High Court orders placing Navlakha under house arrest is extension of Section 167. High Court has no power otherwise.
Once High Court has set aside house arrest, can a person be re-arrested for the same crime? Court asks

Sibal says no
If a man develops medical issues after 30 days of custody and is granted interim bail, will the period for which he is in hospital be calculated as part of 90 days? Court asks

Sibal: I don't imagine so.
Breaking: Supreme Court reserves order in Gautam Navlakha's plea for default bail after 90 days of remand.
Parties would be at liberty to file written submissions: Court

Hearing ends.
[Bhima Koregaon] Supreme Court reserves orders on plea by Gautam Navlakha seeking Default Bail

Read a LIVE account of the hearing today:


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bar & Bench

Bar & Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

26 Mar
Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum to shortly hold a session in view of the designation of six women advocates as Senior Advocates.

The theme of the event is "Celebrating Women's Successes in Litigation".

#DelhiHighCourt #SeniorAdvocate Image
The speakers for the evening are newly designated senior advocates Deepika Marwah, Garima Prashad, Neelima Tripathi, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Suruchi Aggarwal and Malvika Trivedi.

Session begins.

Kritika Gupta welcomes the participants.
Read 78 tweets
26 Mar
BREAKING: Chief Justice of India SA Bobde on the administrative side allocates the Bengal election agent matter to Court 11. Matter is before Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari. Matter to be heard TODAY
The election agent to a candidate contesting the West Bengal Assembly elections from Nandigram has moved Supreme Court against an ex parte order of the Calcutta High Court which revived charges of unlawful assembly and violence.
Hearing to commence shortly
@MamataOfficial #SupremeCourt
Read 55 tweets
26 Mar
Senior Adv Vikas Singh says an election agent in Bengal is facing a criminal case in West Bengal where a dead case had been "revived"

Singh: All cases has been revived

Senior Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi appears for West Bengal
Singh: the High Court has revived it and it relates to the Nandigram land acquisition matter. I cannot function as an agent.

CJI says a special bench may take it up during vacations. Anything can happen in political rivalry. I will see this on administrative side for bench
The election agent in question is a Nandigram election agent.
Read 4 tweets
26 Mar
[Day 10] 5-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court will continue hearing the challenge to Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act which provides educational and employment reservation to #Marathas.

Read an account of the hearing yesterday:

[Maratha quota case] Reservations may go, only EWS may remain, but these are policy matters for Government to decide: Supreme Court - Live Updates

Read 33 tweets
26 Mar
#SupremeCourt to pronounce judgment in the case pertaining to the transfer of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari from Punjab to Uttar Pradesh.
The Punjab government, arguing against the transfer in front of a bench of justices Ashok Bhushan and RS Reddy, said that Ansari can appear for cases underway in Uttar Pradesh via video-conferencing
Ansari is lodged in district jail Rupnagar, Punjab since Jan 2019 in an extortion case after his alleged call from his UP jail cell to a company CEO in Mohali. He is also accused of 38 heinous crimes in UP but he has been acquitted in most of them due to lack of evidence
Read 4 tweets
26 Mar
CJI SA Bobde led bench to hear Sushant Singh Rajput's sister Priyanka's appeal against Bombay High Court order which did not quash Rhea Chakraborty's FIR against her where it was alleged that Singh along with Dr. Tarun had administering banned medicines to #SushantSinghRajput
Challenging an FIR registered on the basis of this complaint before the Bombay High Court, Priyanka Singh had claimed that the FIR was lodged to “concoct a whole new story entirely different from the statements made” by Chakraborty before the Supreme Court and media platforms.
However, Bombay HC had held "There is prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh and there should not be any impediment against investigation against her."

Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!