Bhima Koregaon case: Court rejects activist Gautam Navlakha's plea to live in Delhi
A Mumbai court on Thursday rejected human rights activist Gautam Navlakha's petition seeking permission to live in Delhi during the pendency of his trial in the Bhima Koregaon case, reported Live Law.
The trial in the case is yet to begin.
Navlakha, 72, is among 16 academicians, activists and lawyers who have been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for their alleged role in instigating caste violence at Bhima Koregaon near Pune in January 2018.
He was arrested in August 2018 and placed under house arrest in November 2022 after the Supreme Court granted his request to be shifted from jail on the grounds of ill health and poor facilities in prison.
In December 2023, the Bombay High Court granted him bail, which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in May 2024, following which he was released.
However, one of the bail conditions prohibits him from leaving Mumbai without the permission of the special court, where the trial of the case will be held.
On Thursday, Navlakha was directed by the special National Investigation Agency court not to leave the jurisdiction of the Mumbai court, PTI reported.
The court reportedly told the activist that 'allowing him to reside permanently beyond the jurisdiction of the court is an entirely different thing'.
'This unnecessary application deserves to be rejected,' special judge CS Baviskar was quoted as saying by PTI.
Navlakha, a Delhi resident, had approached the court in April seeking permission to move as it had become 'extremely difficult for him to sustain a stable lifestyle' in Mumbai.
He told the court that he had been unemployed and thus had to financially depend on friends and family since he was released in May 2024.
The activist pointed out that the trial in the case will take a long time to conclude and hence it is 'crucial for him to be employed and financially stable' to be able to meet legal expenses.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
36 minutes ago
- Hans India
Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling
Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Iskcon flyover case: Tathya Patel denied bail once again
Ahmedabad: A sessions court once again rejected the regular bail application of 22-year-old Tathya Patel, who is accused of running his car into a crowd and killing nine persons on the Iskcon flyover in July 2023. In denying bail to Patel, principal district judge K M Sojitra discarded the argument that the trial in this case might take a long time. The court said that the accused himself is seeking adjournment during the trial for quite some time on the grounds that his revision application seeking discharge from section 304 of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was pending before the Gujarat high court. The court also took into consideration that Patel's pleas for regular bail were rejected twice by the trial court earlier, and that Patel has twice withdrawn his bail pleas from the Gujarat high court and once from the Supreme Court. Regarding the arguments for bail, the court stated, "The contentions raised in this application were already raised in the earlier application and the same were already dealt with. No material changed circumstances have tilted in favour of applicant – accused. " The court also considered gravity of the case in denying bail, and said, "Having regards to the seriousness of the incident in which nine people have lost their lives and 12 people are injured and bail plea of the applicant-accused is not considered by the higher courts, the case of applicant - accused cannot be considered for grant of bail."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Safety harness compulsory for kids on two-wheelers in M'luru
Mangaluru: Mangaluru city police will monitor parents who travel on two-wheelers with children below four years without safety gear. According to deputy commissioner of police (crime & traffic) K Ravi Shankar, carrying children below four years on two-wheelers without safety harnesses constitutes a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. "As per the Supreme Court direction, a safety harness is compulsory for children below four years, and those riding two-wheelers should wear quality helmets with ISI marks, and also tie a safety harness around the child's waist. Hence, people should follow these guidelines and adhere to the law," the DCP said. The DCP also clarified that wearing seatbelts is mandatory for all car occupants, including rear-seat passengers. Instead of intercepting cars on roads, the traffic police will use artificial intelligence cameras to monitor and impose penalties on violators. Mangaluru city police commissioner Sudheer Kumar Reddy said 75 people died in various road accidents in the city limits this year. Out of these, 70 fatalities occurred due to rash and negligent driving. The majority of the deceased were youth under 30 years old. The commissioner emphasised the importance of responsible driving and warned that rash and negligent driving can lead to accidents. Highlighting the dangers of drunk driving, the top cop cited a recent incident wherein two people, including NSUI district vice-president Omshree Poojary, died in a road accident caused by a drunk driver. The commissioner noted that the driver was booked under sections 185 and 183 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, which can attract a fine up to Rs 10,000.
