“May not be over for another ten years.”: The Supreme Court stated on Bhima Koregaon-accused Gautam Navlakha’s case.

On April 30, when the National Investigative Agency challenged the Bombay High Court’s decision to give bail to Gautam Navlakha, an accused person in the Bhima Koregaon case, the Supreme Court said out loud that the trial “may not be over for another ten years.”

During the court proceedings, Navlakha’s representative, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, shared that there are a total of 375 witnesses involved in the case.

Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti proceeded to consider the case.

The elderly person has been in custody since August 2018 for breaking the law under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. They were arrested in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that occurred in Bhima Koregaon, Pune. They are also accused of promoting the banned far-left group Communist Party of India (Maoists) and plotting to overthrow the government. Since November 2022, he has been confined to his home due to the intervention of the highest court.

Importantly, Navlakha’s request to change the site of his house arrest in Mumbai was also mentioned yesterday. In previous hearings, the NIA emphasized that Navlakha was required to pay 1.6 crores to cover the expenses of the surveillance conducted during his period of house arrest. Navlakha’s prior hearing representative, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, fiercely objected to this demand, charging the agency with “extortion.” Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who is representing the probe agency, promptly raised an objection to the use of the term ‘extortion.’

In a previous instance, the Court verbally instructed Shadan Farasat, the attorney for Bhima Koregaon-accused Gautam Navlakha, that in the event house detention was requested, the NIA would be obligated to reimburse the costs of surveillance. Subsequently, Shadan Farasat, the advocate for Gautam Navlakha, informed the division bench that the responsibility of calculating the expenses rather than paying them was the sole concern.

At the request of the NIA’s counsel, yesterday’s hearing was adjourned. The counsel informed the Bench that the ASG was preoccupied with an unrelated matter. Although Ramakrishnan did not raise any objection to this petition, she contended that the High Court suspended the bail order, which had been rendered on the merits, without actually hearing the party.

When the Court inquired about the status of the case, she said that petitions under Section 207 (Supply to the accused of a copy of the police report and other documents) of the CrPC are pending. The court inquired, “How many witnesses are present at this time?” Following Ramakrishnan’s disclosure of the figure, Justice Sundresh remarked “It may not be over for another 10 years.”

As a result, the subject was postponed until the following Tuesday, on 7th May,2024. The Bench declared its intention to consider both issues.

Leave a Comment