Supreme Court: Courts can order house arrest in 'suitable cases'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that courts have the authority to order house arrest of convicted people under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in appropriate circumstances.

The apexcourt denied social activist Gautam Navalakha's request for default bail in the suspected Elgar Parishad-Maoist connection case, even as it argued for adopting the international method of placing convicted people under house arrest in "deserving and suitable" situations to relieve prison overcrowding.

Navlakha was pursuing default bail on the grounds that the time he spent under house arrest in Delhi should be counted as part of his judicial detention and should be included when determining his custody date under Section 167(2).

The court noted that idea of house arrest as part of Section 167 detention has eluded the courts, including this one.

However, after focusing on the topic and observing its components, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it includes custody, which comes under Section 167.

It would be left to the legislature to consider whether the accused in post-conviction cases be placed under house arrest under “suitable” circumstances. The top court recommended that the idea of house arrest be implemented due to overcrowding in jails and the cost to the state of running prisons.

The court stated that when deciding whether to warrant house arrest, judges should weigh factors such as the accused's age, health, and antecedents, the seriousness of the offence, the need for other means of detention, and the capacity to execute the terms of the arrest.