Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gautam Navlakha, is an accused in NIA Special Case No.414/2020 along with 14 others for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). He was initially taken into custody on 28.08.2018 in Delhi, but the Delhi High Court stayed his arrest and directed house arrest. That proceeding terminated on 14.02.2020 by the Supreme Court, and he surrendered to NIA on 14.04.2020. He has been in judicial custody since then. His bail application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. was rejected, as was his anticipatory bail application. A subsequent bail application on medical grounds was rejected by the Special NIA Court on 23.08.2021. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction to keep him under house arrest till the completion of trial. The court considered whether it has the power to order house arrest. It held that house arrest is not a recognized form of detention under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the UAPA. The only forms of detention are judicial custody or release on bail. The court cannot create a new form of detention. The petitioner's remedy is to apply for regular bail under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. read with UAPA. The rejection of earlier bail applications does not bar a fresh application on changed circumstances. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - House Arrest - Not a Recognized Form of Detention - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 167, 437, 439 - The petitioner, an accused under UAPA, sought house arrest pending trial. The court held that house arrest is not a form of detention recognized under the Cr.P.C. or UAPA. The only options are judicial custody or release on bail. The court cannot create a new form of detention. (Paras 1-10) B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - Bail - Remedy for Accused - Sections 43D, 43E - The court observed that the petitioner's remedy is to apply for regular bail under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. read with UAPA. The rejection of earlier bail applications does not bar a fresh application on changed circumstances. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can direct house arrest for an accused in a UAPA case pending trial?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that it has no power to order house arrest as it is not a recognized form of detention under Cr.P.C. or UAPA. The petitioner may apply for regular bail.
Law Points
- House arrest not a recognized form of detention under Cr.P.C. or UAPA
- Petitioner must seek regular bail
- No power under Section 167 Cr.P.C. to order house arrest
