Bombay High Court Allows Gautam Navlakha to Reside in Delhi During Trial

In a significant humanitarian development, the Bombay High Court has permitted septuagenarian under-trial prisoner Gautam Navlakha to shift his residence from Mumbai to Delhi while awaiting the conclusion of his trial. The division bench, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, emphasized that while trial proceedings must remain unhampered, the fundamental rights of an accused—including the choice of residence—must be balanced against the exigencies of the legal process.

Case Background

Gautam Navlakha was arrested in August 2018 in connection with the Bhima Koregaon incident. Following a complex procedural history involving multiple judicial orders, house arrests, and periods of incarceration in Taloja Jail, Navlakha was eventually released on bail in December 2023. However, his release was subject to stringent conditions, including a mandate to remain within the jurisdiction of the Special NIA court in Mumbai.

By April 2025, Navlakha moved an application seeking to permanently relocate to his home in Delhi. He cited his advanced age (72), significant financial hardship due to the high cost of living in Mumbai, and the need for familial support, specifically to care for his 86-year-old sister. The Special Judge initially rejected this request, citing the rigid conditions previously imposed by the High Court.

Legal Arguments

Appearing for the appellant, Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary argued that the ongoing trial is a "long-drawn affair," with the prosecution citing over 370 witnesses and a charge-sheet spanning 54 volumes. He noted that despite the passage of five years, charges have yet to be framed, and the discharge application remains pending.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, opposed the transfer, arguing that the appellant’s presence in Mumbai is essential for the timely progression of the trial. Notably, the prosecution conceded that Navlakha had never violated his bail conditions nor attempted to obstruct the course of justice in the past.

Court’s Reasoning

In its ruling, the High Court observed that the trial’s conclusion did not appear to be in sight. The bench noted that keeping an elderly citizen in an unfamiliar city, away from his support system, without immediate prospects of the trial finishing, was an undue burden.

"It is his fundamental right to choose his place of residence and unless it adversely impact the trial which he is to face [we must honor it]," the court stated. The judges clarified that while the permission is granted, it is not an absolute right; Navlakha must remain available in Mumbai whenever the court requires his physical presence for proceedings or the framing of charges.

Key Observations

• "In the tapestry of life, our home towns are the threads that weave the story of who we are."
• "True it is that the trial shall not be permitted to be delayed on account of non-availability of the appellant but as pointed out to us, despite the charge-sheet being filed by NIA in the year 2020 till date, charge is not framed."
• "We see no reason why we should deny his request of permitting him to reside in Delhi, as it is his fundamental right to choose his place of residence and unless it adversely impact the trial which he is to face."
• "We make it clear that purely on humanitarian consideration and considering the aspect of advance age of the Appellant and since he is hit by a feeling of solitude, while he is away from his home, we permit him to reside in the City of Delhi."

The Final Order

The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s refusal, setting forth specific conditions for the relocation. Navlakha must surrender his passport, refrain from traveling outside Delhi without prior permission, and mark his presence at the Kalkaji police station every Saturday. Critically, the court ordered that he must be physically present in Mumbai for the frame of charges and any other mandatory court appearances.

The bench underscored that this decision was based on the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for other accused individuals. This ruling serves as a notable reminder of the judiciary's power to balance the reach of the law with the humanitarian realities facing those caught in lengthy pre-trial processes.