Bhima Koregaon case: SC reserves verdict on bail plea of Gautam Navalakha

The Supreme Court Friday reserved its verdict on a plea of activist Gautam Navalakha seeking bail in the Elgar ParishadMaoist link case of Bhima Koregaon lodged in MaharashtraA bench of Justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph after hearing detailed arguments from senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Navalakha and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju appearing for NIA reserved the verdictThe top court had on March 3 sought response from NIA on the plea of Navalakha seeking default bail in the case saying charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time periodAccording to police some activists allegedly made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad meet in Pune on December 31 2017 which triggered violence at Koregaon Bhima in the district the next dayThe police have also alleged that the event was backed by some Maoist groupsThe high court had said that it sees no reason to interfere with a special courts order which earlier rejected his bail pleaNavlakha had approached the high court last year challenging the special NIA courts order of July 12 2020 that rejected his plea for statutory bailOn December 16 last year the High Court bench reserved its verdict on the plea filed by Navlakha seeking statutory or default bail on the ground that he had been in custody for over 90 days but the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet in the case within this periodThe NIA had argued that his plea was not maintainable and sought an extension of time to file the charge sheetThe special court had then accepted NIAs plea seeking extension of 90 to 180 days to file the charge sheet against Navlakha and his coaccused activist Dr Anand TeltumbdeNavlakhas counsel had told the high court that the NIA was granted the extension to file its charge sheetSibal had said Navlakha had already spent 93 days in custody including 34 days of house arrest and that the High Court must count house arrest as a period of custodyWhile he was under house arrest Navlakhas personal liberties remained curtailed Sibal had said However Raju who appeared for the NIA had argued that Navlakhas house arrest could not be included in the time spent in the custody of police or NIA or under judicial custodyRaju had argued that the Pune police arrested Navlakha in August 2018 but had not taken him into custodyHe had said the accused remained under house arrest and the Delhi High Court quashed his arrest and remand order in October 2018The FIR against him was reregistered in January 2020 and Navlakha surrendered before the NIA on April 14He spent 11 days in the NIAs custody till April 25 and since then he in judicial custody in the Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi MumbaiRaju had argued that if the court looked from the other angle it would see that if he Navlakha was arrested on August 28 2018 he should have been enlarged on bailldquoHe was a free man till April 2020 He was neither on bail nor in custody There cannot be a gap in the custody and detention periodrdquo Raju had saidThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever