As per the supreme court, it's now hospitable courts to order house arrest of accused persons under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in appropriate cases, ruled this on Wednesday (Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency).
The Court ruled that Navlakha's confinement wasn't ordered by the Delhi supreme court purporting to be under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and thus would not be accepted as having been passed under Section 167.
There is one aspect that stands out, custody under Section 167 has been understood so far as both police custody and judicial custody, with judicial custody being fused to jail custody ordinarily, the Court noted. Section 167 empowers a Magistrate having jurisdiction to remand a prisoner to such custody as he thinks fit.
“The concept of house arrest as an area of custody under Section 167 has not engaged the courts including this Court. However, when the problem has inherent focus and noticing its ingredients we've formed the view that it involves custody which falls under Section 167,” the Court said.
We observe that under Section 167, in appropriate cases it'll be hospitable courts to order house arrest, the Court added.
The following observations were made by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph during a judgment rendered on a plea by Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha of seeking default bail on the bottom that the quantity that he was confined under confinement in Delhi should be calculated as a neighborhood of the judicial custody and can be taken into account while deciding the custody period under Section 167(2).
The Court in its judgment said that confinement is often employed taking under consideration criteria like age, health condition and therefore the antecedents of the accused, the character of the crime, the need for other kinds of custody, and thus the power to enforce the terms of the confinement.
“We would also indicate under Section 309 also that judicial custody being custody ordered, subject to following the standards, the 205 courts are getting to be free to employ it in deserving and suitable cases,” the Court further said.
As regards post-conviction cases we'd leave it hospitable the legislature to ponder over its employment insight of the problems of overcrowding in prisons and thus the value to the state in maintaining prisons, the Court observed. insight of the very fact that the house arrest of the appellant wasn't alleged to be under Section 167 and can't be treated as passed thereunder, we dismiss the appeal. there'll be no order on costs.