By:- Sweety Kumari In the Supreme Court of India NAME OF THE CASE Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency CITATION Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2021 [Arising Out of SLP(Criminal) No. 1796/2021] DATE OF THE CASE May 12,2021 APPELLANT Gautam Navlakha RESPONDENT National Investigation Agency BENCH/JUDGE Uday Umesh Lalit & K.M. Joseph STATUTES/PROVISIONS INVOLVED The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES The Code of Criminal Procedure —— Section 167 ABSTRACT In the present case, Gautam Navlakha who is a famous human rights activist who was in house arrest for the period of 34 days in 2018. His application for default bail was rejected by the NIA Special Court and when he challenged the NIA Special Court’s decision it was denied by the Bombay High Court under section 21, NIA Act. So, he appealed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking default bail on the basis that the 34 days period of house arrest should be included in the 90 days period in CrPc section 167. INTRODUCTION In the present case Gautam Navlakha filed an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He pleaded that the time period of 34 days in the house arrest should be regarded as custody for seeking default bail. The concept of default bail mentioned in section 167 CrPc give the accused the right of bail. This section states that a person when arrested, detained in custody and he is prepared to furnish bail if in the Court the charge sheet has not be filed then in case of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life and imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, the detention cannot be extended beyond 15 days but if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to extend this period then this period can be extended up to 90 days maximum.  The appellant was in house arrest for 34 days and wanted to include that period for grant of default bail for the purpose of calculating the time for the submission of charge sheet under Unlawful Prevention Act. FACTS OF THE CASE Gautam Navlakha, the appellant was detained in 28th August,2018 under section 167, CrPc and was made to appear in a Delhi Court for the purpose of remand to bring him to Pune as a FIR was filed against him there under the provisions of the Unlawful Prevention Act (UAPA). The Delhi Court prevented his transfer by staying the transit remand and he was ordered to be kept in house arrest which continued for the period of 34 days. Before the High Court order, a transit remand was ordered by the CMM which directed to put him in 2 days custody which was later set aside by the court because it was illegal and impermissible to detain after 24 hours. His detention was declared unconstitutional by the Delhi High Court on 1st October,2018. During the same period FIR filed against him was declined to be dismissed by the Bombay High Court. On February 14, 2020 his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court and he was to surrender under the order of the Supreme Court till 8th April,2020. He surrendered to NIA on 14th April. His request for the grant of default bail before the NIA Special Court as NIA had failed to file a charge sheet or seek an extension of time within the 90-day statutory period of his custody on July 12 was rejected. He appealed against this decision of the NIA Special Court before the Bombay High Court. On October 9, 2020 a charge sheet was filed against him by NIA. His appeal was rejected by the Bombay High Court according to the provisions of section 21 of the NIA Act. The period of 90 days for release on default bail was surpassed which included 34 days in house arrest, 11 days of detention under NIA in April, 2020 and period of judicial detention from 25th April to 28th June, 2020. The NIA approached to the NIA Special Court with its application to extend the time of filling the chargesheet. So, he approached the Supreme Court for issuance of default bail and inclusion of 34 days of house arrest in calculating the time period for submitting chargesheet under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT Can the time period of detention in house arrest should be regarded as custody and be included for seeking default bail? ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the officers were free to question and do their investigation after obtaining Delhi High Court leave in his house arrest in 2018 Under the section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA police custody can be desired at any time. The High Court changed only the form of detention from police custodial transit to house arrest. If the period of detention is proved unconstitutional, then also it couldn’t be strike out. According to section 167 the total time period of custody need not to be continuous and can include broken intervals too. ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that Section 167 of the CrPc gives the police the authority to do the interrogation of the accused and if this authority is not provided with then that custodial period doesn’t come under the purview of section 167. Detention of accused under house arrest is not regarded as custody under the Section 167. RELATED PROVISIONS The Code of Criminal Procedure Section 167 – Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. 1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub- inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy … Continue reading GAUTAM NAVLAKHA vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY