Citizens Are Not Entitled To House Arrest: NIA Tells Apex Court That Gautam Navlakha Owes ₹ 1.64 Crore Towards House Arrest

The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the parties before adjourning the matter to be listed on a non-miscellaneous date.

When the matter was taken, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing for Navlakha submitted that the accused is under house arrest and the matter needs to be heard urgently.

ASG SV Raju appearing for the NIA then submitted, “As far as house arrest is concerned, they are supposed to make a payment of more than One Crore Sixty Four Lakhs. This is due and payable. They must first make the payment”.

Per contra, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the amount cannot be demanded from citizens for keeping them in custody. The ASG replied, “Citizens are not entitled to house arrest. They have agreed to the payment…they made a part-payment…cannot back out now”.

Justice Bhatti then remarked, “Let us understand one circumstance. Then we will come to the payment part…let’s not mix up”.

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be heard in detail on a non-miscellaneous day.

The Supreme Court had on an earlier date directed the Superintendent, Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai to take the petitioner immediately to the Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai (the hospital of the choice of the petitioner) so that the petitioner is enabled to undergo all the requisite medical check-up and receive treatment.

The Supreme Court in September 2023 expressed its reservations on the earlier order passed by a two-judge bench of the Court, directing to put Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha under house arrest owing to his deteriorating health condition. The Bench was of the opinion that the earlier order may have set a "wrong precedent".

The Supreme Court in April 2023 directed Gautam Navlakha to deposit Rs 8 lakh as an expense for making available police personnel for his security during house arrest. While ordering his house arrest on 10 November 2022, the Apex Court had initially directed Navlakha to deposit Rs 2.4 lakh as the expenses to be borne by the state for making available police personnel to effectively facilitate placing the petitioner under house arrest.

The Petitioner is one of the Accused in the National Investigating Agency Special Case. He and the other 14 accused have been prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 153(A), 505(1)(B), 117, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 124-A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 38, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, UAPA). The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claim triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the city.

The Bombay High Court held, “It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in appropriate cases it will be open to Courts to order house arrest. It is observed that the criteria like age, health condition, antecedents of the accused, the nature of crime, the need for other forms of custody and the ability to enforce the terms of the house arrest, would be some of the indicative factors. In our view, the case of the petitioner does not fit in any of the criteria. In the facts and circumstances, we conclude that this is not a fit case to grant the prayer. The apprehension of the petitioner that he will not be provided medical aid and his life would be miserable in unhygienic conditions and atmosphere of the prison seems to be ill-founded.”