CRUX:
Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2021- In the present Appeal, the issue involved was whether the time spent in detention during home arrest qualifies as custody for default bail purposes.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
12/05/2021
JUDGE:
JusticeUday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph
PARTIES:
Gautam Navlakha (Appellant)
National Investigation Agency (Respondent)
SUMMARY
In the present Appeal, the issue involved was whether the time spent in detention during home arrest qualifies as custody for default bail purposes.
Background Facts
Gautam Navalakha was originally detained under Section 167 of the CrPC on August 28, 2018, and appeared before a Delhi court for remand to be brought to Pune in connection with a FIR filed there under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The transit remand was stayed by the Delhi high court on the same day, preventing him from being transferred to Maharashtra. The high court also placed him under home arrest by the same decision.
The home arrest lasted 34 days, after which the Delhi high court declared his detention unconstitutional. In the meantime, the Bombay high court declined to dismiss the FIR filed against him. After his anticipatory bail application was denied by the high court on February 14, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered him to surrender within three weeks on March 16, 2020, which was extended by one week on April 8, 2020 owing to the COVID-19 epidemic. On April 14, 2020, he surrendered to the NIA.
He requested default bail on the grounds that the NIA had failed to file a chargesheet or seek an extension of time within the 90-day statutory period of his custody. On July 12, 2020, the NIA special court, before which the application for default bail was brought, rejected the application.
Navlakha filed an appeal with the Bombay high court, contesting the NIA special court's decision. The NIA filed a chargesheet against Navlakha on October 9, 2020. On February 8, 2021, the Bombay high court denied Navlakha's appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
Thus, Navlakha's imprisonment encompassed 34 days of house arrest in 2018, 11 days of NIA detention in April 2020, and judicial detention from April 25 to June 28, 2020, all of which plainly surpassed the required period of 90 days, allowing him to be released on default bail. On June 29, 2020, the NIA applied to the NIA special court for an extension of time to file the chargesheet.
Navlakha was not allowed to meet anyone save his lawyers and the regular inhabitants of the house during his house arrest. He was unable to leave the premises. Outside the residence, two Delhi Police special cell guards were supposed to be stationed. The Pune Police, who were investigating the matter before the NIA took it over in January of last year, had no access to him and no opportunity to question him. Navalakha could not be deemed to be in police custody for investigation because the transit remand order was stayed.
He filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking default bail and wanted to include in his wrongful detention for 34 days in 2018 when calculating the time limit for submitting a chargesheet under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
Core Issue
Whether the time spent in detention during home arrest qualifies as custody for default bail purposes?
Petitioner Counsel’s Submission Before Apex Court
Navlakha's senior counsel, Kapil Sibal, contended that nothing barred the officers from questioning him and, if necessary, investigating the matter after obtaining leave from the Delhi high court during his house detention in 2018. Sibal argued that there was no stay of investigation and that police custody might be requested at any time under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA.
The fact that the remand was eventually overturned and the detention was unconstitutional was an unsustainable basis for concluding that there was no remand under section 167 of the CrPC.
In its ruling, the Delhi high court stated that Navlakha's home arrest "comes to an end as of today." The time of house arrest was not treated as non-est or void, and only the transit order was stayed, not the remand order. The form of the detention was only changed by the high court, from transit in police custody to confinement at Navlakha's residence. Even if the detention was proven to be unconstitutional, the period of detention could not be erased, it was maintained. The total length of custody, which can include broken intervals and does not have to be one continuous lot, is required under Section 167 CrPC.
Bench’s Observation
The concept of home arrest as part of section 167 custody has not been taken up by the courts, including this one. We've come to the conclusion that it includes custody, which is covered under section 167. Courts will be able to warrant home arrest under Section 167 in appropriate instances. As to its employment, without being exhaustive, we may indicate criteria like age, health condition, and the antecedents of the accused, the nature of the crime, the need for other forms of custody and the ability to enforce the terms of the house arrest.
In terms of post-conviction cases, we'd leave it up to the legislators to decide how to use it. We've discussed the issues of jail overpopulation and the cost to the state of maintaining prisons.
Apex Court Agrees with the NIA
On Wednesday, a Supreme Court bench agreed with the NIA that an accused who is remanded in detention under Section 167 of the CrPC cannot be released until he is bailed out or acquitted. He was not granted bail and was not remanded to judicial custody at the conclusion of his house arrest. The NIA maintained that the so-called custody during the house arrest was not custody or imprisonment under Section 167.
Because a person cannot be arrested for the same offence twice, Navalakha's appeal for anticipatory bail assumes that the arrest on August 28, 2018 was non-est. Navlakha's surrender prevented him from presenting his home arrest as custody under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The NIA contended that a judicial act should not have a detrimental influence on the investigative agency, citing the adage "Actus curiae neminemgravabit," which would apply in this situation. Is it possible, however, that the court's act will have a detrimental impact on the accused? This issue was not addressed by the Supreme Court.
If the Delhi high court had been contacted, the bench agreed with Navlakha that it might have ordered him to help with the probe. “However, it remains in the realm of speculation. The implications of this component will be studied further later,” the bench said, as if dubious of its own logic.
If the appellant's remand took place in 2018, the bench reasoned, the remand to police custody well beyond the first 30 days of the remand in 2018 would be entirely incongruous. It appeared as if the bench had no choice but to follow this logic in order to justify the police's reluctance to question Navlakha during his house detention in 2018, as well as the new remand against him in 2020.
Apex Court’s Decision
The custody of the accused must be authorised by the Magistrate in order to claim the benefit of default bail. The detention was illegal because the magistrate's authorization had been found invalid. Under section 167(2) of the CrPC, home arrest cannot be considered permitted detention.
Despite the fact that the accused may have been brought into custody earlier, the bench determined that the 90-day period shall begin only from the day of remand and not from any earlier date.The court decided that the period from August 28, 2018 to October 1, 2018 while he was under house arrest had to be removed.
Conclusion
In the current instance, the bench accomplished this by allowing courts to order house arrests as a form of custody in appropriate instances under Section 167 of the CrPC. As a result of Navlakha's loss on Wednesday, additional human rights defenders' freedom under police or judicial custody may be limited in the future.The procedure under Section 167 of the CrPC applies when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours of an individual's arrest. Depending on the nature of the offences, an accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC if the investigation has not been completed within the required time limit.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
