In Brief
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of activist Gautam Navlakha challenging the rejection of his default bail application. Navlakha was arrested in August 2018 under UAPA provisions. The Delhi High Court ordered his house arrest after quashing the transit remand. The central issue was whether the 34-day house arrest could be counted towards the 90-day period entitling him to statutory bail under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that while house arrest constitutes deprivation of liberty, it was not purportedly ordered under Section 167 and therefore could not be counted. The Court noted that default bail is a fundamental right, but only when Section 167 conditions are satisfied. The decision clarifies that superior courts can exercise Section 167 powers, but the House arrest order was not such an exercise.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.