MUMBAI, Aug. 6 -- 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. 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. On December 19, 2023, the Bombay high court granted bail to Navlakha but barred him from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission from the special court. Navlakha had previously moved an application to reside permanently in Delhi, which was rejected on June 19. Navlakha had sought permission to travel to Delhi 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. He also 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 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 agency also raised the possibility that the accused may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond. While the court had previously allowed him to go to Delhi for two months in November 2024 citing "genuinely serious" grounds, this did not justify repeated requests on similar grounds, it said. The order stated that this did not mean he will be granted repeated permissions because he is using the same reasons. 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."...