#BombayHighCourt is hearing the default bail application filed by Gautam Navlakha, accused in the #BhimaKoregaon case.

Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik are hearing the plea.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submits that this is a simple matter of bail to be decided on facts.

He claims that Navlakha was in custody for more than 90 days. He was under house arrest for some time before being taken into judicial custody.
Sibal submitted that Navlakha had surrendered on April 14 and spent 93 days in custody. He spent 34 days in custody before remand order of Magistrate.
Sibal points out that the nature of custody may have changed but it was arrest nonetheless and for this reason, he should be granted bail.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for the NIA begins his submission.

He points out that the police had only arrested him and had not taken custody.
Raju argues that the another high court had declared his earlier arrest as non est and therefore he was neither in custody nor out on bail. He was a free man.
Sibal replies that arrest is a matter of law, custody is a matter of fact.
Since the court has to rise for lunch break, the Court asks Raju if he can continue after break.

Raju asks for 10 mins post 4.30 pm.

Matter will be taken at 4.30 pm.
ASG SV Raju continues his submissions.

He refers to the judgment of Chaganti Satyanarayan & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (Read here: https://t.co/T6DA4VkEGM)

He argues that the date of production is important. The period of custody for Navlakha begins from April 15.
Raju argues that there cannot be a gap in the custody and detention period.
Raju concludes his arguments.

Courts asks him to submit his written note of arguments.

Sr Adv Nitya Ramakrishnan begins her rejoinder to Raju’s bail plea.

However since her audio is not clear through the video conference hearing, the Court asks her to submit a written note.
Court reserves the matter for judgment.

Grants one week for filing written notes of arguments.

More from Bar & Bench

More from Court

There won't be a rerun of Jan 6. The riot at the Capitol was unique in many ways: Trump called for it; it was the last chance to "overturn" the election; it was huge in scale.


The coming Trumpist events on Jan 17 and Jan 20 will probably be much smaller in scale, especially in DC. The MAGA crew can't buy another flight and take more days off work so soon after Jan 6.

Some of the Trumpist forums are actively suspicious of these events, claiming they're FBI or Antifa traps. A lot of people at TDW felt that the *design* of this flyer was too lefty to be real!


Unfortunately, that doesn't mean everything will be OK. The statehouse events on Jan 17 have the potential to turn violent, where a few hundred people could be enough to overwhelm local authorities.

MAGA anger at a lot of the GOP is high, as well as against Dems. Even red states could see problems, so I hope authorities are prepared.
Zojuist procesverbaal zittingen in deze verkrachtingszaak gekregen. Zeg, @HofDenBosch, jullie LIEGEN echt alles bij elkaar in deze zaak en hebben ook doelbewust uit stukken gelaten dat ik de Nederlandse overheid verantwoordelijk hield voor het ontstaan van deze tweede zaak! 1/ https://t.co/M5KfflDkFJ


Wat ik onder anderen gezegd heb ter zitting?

"Deze tweede zaak kon ALLEEN gebeuren omdat in de eerste zaak geweigerd werd getuigen te horen. Vervolgens is deze getuige mij gaan bedreigen en chanteren. Meerdere politiemeldingen, politie deed NIETS" 2/

@HofDenBosch


"Uiteindelijk kon door het FALEN van de Nederlandse overheid deze getuige mij van mijn vrijheid beroven en heeft hij mij verkracht"

Dat laten jullie natuurlijk weer uit het procesverbaal @HofDenBosch!

Er is ook met geen woord gerept over een 'klacht over politieoptreden' betreffende deze tweede zaak, tijdens de zitting! De AG haalde de verkrachtingszaak uit het niets aan, niet een klacht over politieoptreden betreffende de tweede zaak!


Er was op dat moment nog niet eens aangifte gedaan in de tweede zaak, maar om de een of andere reden wist de AG al dat ik een intake gesprek had gehad! Ik heb de @politie gesproken (opgenomen gesprek), die begrepen OOK niet hoe de AG dat kon weten!
In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary

Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.

https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc


Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.

Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460

You May Also Like