MUMBAI: The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court recently rejected an application filed by Gautam Navlakha, a civil rights activist booked under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence case, seeking permission to travel to and reside in Delhi for 45 days. Navlakha had previously moved an application to reside permanently in Delhi, which was rejected on June 19.
Special judge Chakor Shrikrishna Baviskar, in an order passed on July 30, rejected Navlakha’s plea on account of the binding directives of the Bombay High Court. Citing the seriousness of charges levelled against him, the court said his repeated requests to travel to Delhi cannot be justified.
Navlakha, represented by advocate Wahab Khan, sought permission to travel to Delhi on several grounds. He wanted to visit his 86-year-old ailing sister and spend time with his partner’s daughters and grandchildren, whom he had not seen in over five years. He also had pending medical check-ups and domestic affairs. Additionally, he expressed a desire to explore work opportunities in Mumbai by leveraging his connections in Delhi.
The NIA strongly contested the application. Special public prosecutor Prakash Shetty, in his response, argued that the offences against Navlakha were serious and that he has “international connections.” The prosecution expressed concerns that he “may misuse liberty,” potentially continuing “further conspiracy in connection with the present case” while in Delhi. The federal agency also raised the possibility that the accused may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond, which could hinder expeditious disposal of the trial.
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Navlakha on December 19, 2023, but barred him from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission from the special court. While the special court had previously allowed him to travel to Delhi for two months on November 7, 2024, citing “genuinely serious” grounds, this did not justify repeated requests on similar grounds, it said.
“It does not mean that, every now and then, the applicant, on the same grounds, for the same reason, should be granted permission,” the order stated. The special judge observed that allowing such requests would contravene the High Court’s mandate, which expected Navlakha to remain within the court’s territorial jurisdiction except in “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.”