If You Have Sought For House Arrest, You Must Pay The Expenses: Supreme Court Tells Bhima Koregaon Case Accused Gautam Navlakha

The septuagenarian has been in custody since August 2018 for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after being arrested in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune and for allegedly furthering the agenda of proscribed far-left outfit Communist Party of India (Maoists) and conspiring to overthrow the government. He has been under house arrest since November 2022 following the apex court's intervention.

The court was hearing Navlakha's plea for shifting his house arrest location in Mumbai, alongside the NIA's plea challenging a Bombay High Court order granting him bail in December last year. While issuing this verdict, the high court suspended the operation of the bail order for three weeks. This stay was extended by the Supreme Court in January.

During earlier proceedings, the NIA has expressed its concerns over the order of house arrest. In November 2022, an order was passed by a bench led by now-retired Justice KM Joseph, allowing Navlakha to be released from detention and placed under house arrest on the grounds of his deteriorating health.

Apart from this, the NIA had also stressed that Navlakha must first pay 1.6 crores to meet the cost of the surveillance incurred during his house arrest. However, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, who represented Navlakha in the previous hearing, fervently opposed such demand, accusing the agency of 'extortion'. At the same time, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the probe agency, quickly objected to using the term 'extortion.'

However, the judges intervened, reasoning that the dispute over the amount claimed by the NIA would have to be adjudicated in a proper hearing. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned and came to be listed for today.

During the course of today's hearing, ASG Raju, at the very outset, submitted: "1.64 crores are (due to us) for providing the security....they must pay that, house arrest is an unusual order....There are a large number of police personnel, round the clock..."

To this, J Sunderesh orally remarked: "If you have sought it (house arrest), then you have to pay."

Following this, Farasat said: "There is no difficulty in paying per see, the issue is with respect to the calculation. I will take the latest calculation of what the solicitor is saying and will address it....no difficulty."

However, the law officer did not change his stance and argued that the cost was mounting and could not be avoided under the guise of calculation.  Moving ahead, when the law officer pressed the Bench to look at the calculations, the Court denied the same, saying that it would not be correct to do so when an objection to the same has not been filed yet.

Ultimately, the Court listed both the matter for April 23rd. Meanwhile, the Court also extended the stay on the Bombay High Court's order. 

Case Details

1. Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9216 of 2022

2. National Investigation Agency v. Gautam P Navlakha & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2024