On Thursday, the SC permitted Navlakha, a noted academic and activist,?to be released from jail and put under house arrest on account of his deteriorating health. Prima facie, there is no reason to reject the septuagenarian's medical report, the court said.

Navlakha, 70, has been in custody since April 14, 2020, and?was?lodged?in Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist link case.?The apex court order came on an appeal against the April 26 order of the Bombay High Court dismissing Navlakha's plea for house arrest over apprehensions of lack of adequate medical and other basic facilities in Taloja jail.

As per the court's directions, Navlakha is to be shifted out?within 48 hours for a month, and allowed to stay at home under house arrest, given he complies with certain rules including??CCTV surveillance and telephone curbs.

While granting bail, the court noted that Navlakha did?not have any criminal background at all other than this?case and even the Government of India had even appointed him as interlocutor to hold talks with Maoists for securing the release of people kidnapped by Maoists.

Why is Navlakha in prison?

Navlakha was arrested in April 2020 in connection with the Elgar Parishad conclave case where Navlakakha and others have been accused of making inflammatory speeches that led to violence. The conclave, held in?Pune on December 31, 2017, had been attended by several social activists, dignitaries, leaders and academics, was followed by violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city. The violence led to the death of a 28-year-old youth and according to claims made by the police, speeches made by Navlakha and others?triggered the violence.?

What are the rules for Navlakha's house arrest?

While permitting Navlakha relief for a month, the top court laid down several conditions for the house arrest.?

Navlakha will not be allowed to use a computer and internet during his house arrest. He also cannot access any other communication device while under house arrest.??Television and newspapers will be allowed, but these cannot be internet-based

He will, however, be permitted to use a mobile phone without internet, provided by police personnel on duty, once a day for 10 minutes in the presence of the police."

Navlakha will also be under constant surveillance.?CCTV cameras will be installed outside the rooms and at entry and exit points of his house.?

The court also said that Navlakha shall not be allowed to leave Mumbai and he will not attempt, in any manner, to influence witnesses during his house arrest.

He would, however,?be permitted to meet a lawyer as per Jail Manual rules and intimate police personnel in case of medical emergency.

Who are the other accused in Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case?

Navlakha's release comes over a year after the death of activist and fellow Bhima Koregaon accused Stan Swamy who passed away in a hospital while in judicial custody?on July 5, 2021 after being denied bail despite repeated pleas citing Swamy's ill health. The reputed Jesuit priest?was 84?at the time of death.?

The other accused include Varavara Rao, lawyer and activist Sudha Bhardwaj, academic and activist Vernon Gonsalves, and human rights activist Arun Ferreira who were all put under house on?August 28, 2019,?including?writer and poet?Navlakha.?

They were charged?under UAPA for allegedly having links with Maoists, and instigating the violence at Koregaon Bhima.

Within six months, they were arrested and brought to Mumbai’s Taloja jail. In the following months, other noted persons from civil society including?Anand Teltumbde, Father Stan Swamy, Hany Babu, Sagar Gorkhe, Ramesh Gaichor and Jyoti Jagtap were arrested.

Earlier in August, the apex court?granted regular bail to Telugu poet-activist Varavara Rao on medical grounds. Sudha Bhardwaj was also granted bail last year in December.

Previous pleas by Bhima Koregaon accused

In November 2020, accused Stan Swamy had filed an application before a special court here seeking straw and sipper at the Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai where he is lodged.?In his plea, Swamy had said the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seized it from him and he was unable to lift a glass due to Parkinson's disease. The NIA, in its reply, however, said it had not seized any straw and sipper glass from Swamy. Later, jail authorities provided him with a straw and sipper.

?In December 2020, Navlakha's partner Sahba Husain said the former's spectacles were stolen in jail and when his family sent him a new pair, the jail authorities refused to accept them. The jail authorities later accepted the pair of spectacles sent by Navlakha's family after a rap from?the high court which later criticised the jail authorities and said all these are human considerations.

In 2020, lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj had filed an application before the special court claiming she was not being allowed access to books. She said when books were sent for her, the Superintendent at Mumbai's Byculla Jail, where she was lodged, had refused to receive them for her. The special court had allowed her plea to have access to five books per month from outside prison, while directing the jail superintendent to "carefully examine" the books to ensure they did not contain any "objectionable material".

The court had also said beyond the prescribed parameters to deem a book's content "objectionable", including whether it is vulgar, obscene or preaches violence, a superintendent did not have powers to withhold a book from a detainee.

In April this year, Navlakha's lawyer Yug Chaudhary had informed the Bombay High Court that prison authorities had refused to hand over a book by English author P G Wodehouse. During the arguments in the high court on Navlakha's plea seeking to be kept under house arrest, Chaudhary had said the condition of the prison was very poor.

Navlakha and co-accused Sagar Gorkhe had filed applications in the special court seeking permission to have mosquito nets inside the prison. This was opposed by Taloja jail authorities citing security concerns. The court did not allow the pleas of Navlakha and Gorkhe, but directed the jail superintendent to take "all necessary precautions against mosquitoes, conduct fumigation, allow inmates to use repellents, ointments and incense sticks".

Navlakha had also filed another application in the special court seeking permission to make phone/video calls to his kin.

The prison authorities had contended that the facility started during the COVID-19 pandemic, but could not be permitted to undertrials on a regular basis. The court rejected Navlakha's plea, following which he filed an appeal in the high court.

Surendra Gadling, another accused in the case, had filed an application seeking a chair and table citing medical ailments, claiming he was he was unable to squat on the floor for long without developing pain in his back and neck. Gadling had said he needed the table and chair as he had to study a lot since he was representing himself in the case. Prison authorities had opposed this plea as well citing security risks.?The court agreed with Gadling's contention, observing that the allegations he has to defend himself against are serious and there are a large number of documents he needs to study for hours together. Gadling was allowed a chair and table at his cost.

Gadling had also sought permission to have his own shaving kit, which was opposed by the prison authorities. The court agreed with the prison authorities that it would pose danger and rejected the application.

(With inputs from PTI)