The right to choose one's residence is upheld unless it substantially impacts trial proceedings, considering the aspects of age, health, and compliance with judicial requirements.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1 “In the tapestry of life, our home towns are the threads that weave the story of who we are”.

The above quote truly expresses the desire of a septuagenarian, an under-trial prisoner currently on bail in Special Case No. 414/2020 and presently stationed in Mumbai, awaiting his trial.

2. In connection with FIR No.4/2018 registered at Vishrambaug police station, Pune regarding the Bhima Koregaon incident that occurred on 1/1/2018, the appellant was arrested from his residence on 28/8/2018.

On the very same day, the Delhi High Court stayed his transit remand and directed him to be placed under House arrest. His arrest was eventually quashed by the Delhi High Court on 1/10/2018, on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and Section 167 r/w section 57 and section 41(1)(ba) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

By virtue of the aforesaid order, the House arrest of the petitioner came to an end. Between 5/10/2018 to 13/4/2020, the appellant continued to be a free man, protected from arrest under various orders passed by the Bombay High Court as well as the Apex Court and he continued to reside at his Delhi residence.

In the wake of the order dated 16/3/2020 passed by the Apex Court, which granted time to him to surrender, on 14/4/2020, the appellant surrendered at the NIA, Delhi office, and he was transferred to Mumbai and produced before the NIA Special Court on 26/5/2020 and was remanded to judicial custody.

3. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed in the subject C.R. involving the appellant under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The appellant, while in custody, as an under-trial prisoner, made a request to the High Court for placing him under House arrest in view of his health condition and advanced age. It was pleaded that he was in custody since 14/4/2020 and housed in Taloja Jail, Navi Mumbai, and although a charge-sheet was filed against him, no charge was framed and he stood accused along with 15 others.

The High Court refused him the facility of House arrest.

This order on being challenged before the Apex Court, he was subjected to medical evaluation, and a report from Jaslok hospital, Mumbai was received.

4. Upon an in-depth consideration of the said report, it was recorded that the petitioner was in custody since 2020 and that, even in the past, he was placed under House arrest and there was no complaint about his conduct when this facility was extended to him.

Recording that prima facie there did not appear to have been any case that he will misuse the facility of House arrest and since the petitioner did not have any criminal background, and rather his services were utilised in past by the Government of India as an interlocutor to mediate with extremists for securing the release of security personnel kidnapped by the Maoists, he was permitted to be placed under House arrest at the address mentioned in the order. The appellant was also directed to bear the expenses for making available the police personnel to effectively facilitate placing him under House arrest with certain other directions being issued, including the restriction on use of mobile phone, internet, computer, laptop etc.

5. The appellant thereafter moved an application for bail in NIA Special Case which was rejected by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai