Activist Gautam Navlakha, accused in the Elgar Parishad case, withdrew his anticipatory bail plea in the Bombay High Court on Monday after the court said he would have to first move the sessions court for relief.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Prakash Naik was hearing the plea filed by Mr. Navlakha under Section 438 (direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Navlakha’s current protection from arrest in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence will expire next week.
Defence lawyer Yug Chaudhry started his arguments saying Mr. Navlakha is 67 years old and has been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code by the Pune Police. He said Anand Teltumbde, a co-accused in the case, was granted similar relief by the sessions court a few days before his protection for arrest was to expire.
The judge asked when Mr. Navlakha’s protection granted by the Supreme Court was to expire. When Mr. Chaudhry replied the relief was till November 12, the court said, “You could have gone to sessions court. It will be decided expeditiously there.”
Mr. Chaudhry said they only have a week, and sought a stay on the arrest to be extended so that he gets time to return to the HC.
The court said it will pass an order that the sessions court should decide the matter expeditiously. Mr. Chaudhry then sought permission to withdraw the plea and move the sessions court. The court recorded that the prosecution should not seek an adjournment, and directed the sessions court to decide the matter expeditiously.
Mr. Navlakha had previously moved the High Court to quash the FIR against him.
On September 13, a Division Bench of the HC held, “We are satisfied that the investigating agency has material to connect Mr. Navlakha in the subject crime. The investigation is still in progress. Considering the nature and magnitude of the conspiracy, in our opinion, the investigating agency is required to be given sufficient time to unearth the evidence against Mr. Navlakha, especially when the scope of investigation is not restricted to Bhima-Koregoan incident but activities leading to the incident and subsequent activities as well are the subject matter of investigation.”
