Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 257

GAUTAM NAVLAKHA – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate
For the Respondent:S.V. Raju, Sairica Raju, Advocate, Guntur Pramod Kumar, B. V. Balaram Das, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment analyzes whether house arrest constitutes custody under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and if such custody can be counted for default bail. (!) (!) - It discusses transit remand, its nature as production vs. detention, and its impact on legality of detention and default bail. (!) (!) - It addresses how custody periods (police/judicial/house arrest) may be counted toward the 90-day/default bail period, including applicability to UAPA and potential extensions. (!) (!) (!) - The decision considers the role of Article 21 and 22 protections in remand and detention procedures. (!) (!) - It notes that an order under Section 167 is an interlocutory judicial function and that habeas corpus lies in certain illegal or mechanical remand scenarios. (!) (!)

How to determine whether house arrest can be counted as custody under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.?

What is the effect of a transit remand order on the legality of detention and the right to default bail?

What is the scope of custody and its counting for default bail under UAPA cases when superior courts order remand?

JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Leave granted.

2. On the basis of FIR No. 4 of 2018 dated 08.01.2018, registered at Vishrambagh Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra, which was one registered under Sections 153A, 505(1B) and Section 34 of IPC to which Section 120(B) was added on 06.03.2018 and still further into which, Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UAPA', for short), were added on 17.05.2018, and, in which FIR, the name of the appellant was added on 22.08.2018, the appellant came to be arrested from his residence in Delhi on 28.08.2018. The appellant moved Writ Petition No. 2559 of 2018 seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court of Delhi. The High Court, apart from issuing notice, inter alia, ordered that no further precipitate action of removing the appellant from Delhi be taken till the matter was taken at 04:00 P.M.. The Order was passed at 02:45 P.M.. In the meantime, the CMM at Saket, Delhi disposed of an Application seeking transit remand with the following Order:

"FIR No. 4/18

PS: V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 257

GAUTAM NAVLAKHA – AppellantVersusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent

How to determine whether house arrest can be counted as custody under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.?

What is the effect of a transit remand order on the legality of detention and the right to default bail?

What is the scope of custody and its counting for default bail under UAPA cases when superior courts order remand?

GAUTAM NAVLAKHA – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent