Back
K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Gautam Navlakha – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General. Also heard Ms. Nithya Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner (in the special leave petition).
2. We are not inclined to entertain the application for vacation of order dated 29.09.2022 and 10.11.2022.
3. Interlocutory Application will stand dismissed.
I.A. No. 176263/2022
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that certain further safeguards need to be engrafted which must be read as an addition to what we have already ordered by orders dated 29.09.2022 and 10.11.2022.
5. It is inter alia stated as follows:
'5. Even otherwise, a CCTV camera has already been placed at the main entrance to the hall wherein the Petitioner is sought to be kept under house arrest. Additionally, the other exit towards the ground floor from the kitchen has already been locked, and the Petitioner has no objection if the exit is sealed by the NIA. The Petitioner had been in the process of having a CCTV camera placed at this point, when the NIA objected and sought to have the entire kitchen sealed and a gas stove placed inside the main hall. Needless t
The court has the authority to order additional safeguards for house arrest, including the sealing of exits and the installation of CCTV cameras, to ensure the safety and security of the petitioner.
Relief not sought in pleadings should not be granted, as it denies the opposing party the chance to contest, potentially leading to injustice.
Granting liberty to place CCTV cameras for security and risk assessment based on the court's view.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
