#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

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

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m