Elgar Parishad Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Gautam Navlakha's Bail Plea


Letest job update


Elgar Parishad Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Gautam Navlakha’s Bail Plea

The Nationwide Investigation Company (NIA) is conducting a probe into the case (File)


The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Monday dismissed a statutory bail attraction of activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused within the Elgar Parishad-Maoist hyperlinks case, saying it sees no purpose to intrude with a particular court docket’s “well-reasoned order” which earlier refused him bail.

A bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik mentioned the 34 days that Navlakha spent underneath home arrest in 2018 couldn’t be counted because the interval spent in custody for consideration of the statutory bail.

The civil rights activist was arrested by the Pune police on August 28, 2018, however not taken in custody.

Between August 28 and October 1, 2018, Mr Navlakha was saved underneath home arrest.

He additionally spent 11 days within the NIA’s custody from April 14 to April 25 final 12 months, after he surrendered following re-registration of an FIR towards him in January 2020.

Since then, he has remained in judicial custody and is lodged on the Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.


The Nationwide Investigation Company (NIA) is conducting a probe into the case.

Mr Navlakha approached the Excessive Court docket final 12 months, difficult the particular NIA court docket’s order of July 12, 2020 that rejected his plea for statutory bail.

He had sought statutory or default bail on the bottom that he had been in custody for over 90 days, however the prosecution didn’t file a cost sheet within the case inside this era.

His counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had argued that Mr Navlakha already spent 93 days in custody, together with 34 days of home arrest between August 28 and October 1, 2018, and the excessive court docket should rely home arrest because the interval of custody.

Further Solicitor Common SV Raju, showing for the NIA, had opposed the applying, contending the particular court docket had rightfully held that Mr Navlakha’s home arrest didn’t represent detention.

He had mentioned that in such home arrest, Mr Navlakha was not accessible for interrogation as he would have been if in common custody.