The Bombay High Court on Thursday recorded Maharashtra government's statement that it will take Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha to the Tata Memorial Centre Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer at Kharghar, Mumbai in order to examine a lump in his chest..Navlakha's lawyers Yug Mohit Chaudhry submitted that considering there was a history of cancer in Navlakha's family, there is an apprehension that the lump may be malignant and in order to examine the same, Navlakha moved the High Court for urgent relief. He added that since Navlakha's sister works in Jaslok hospital, Navlakha would be more comfortable in getting examined in Jaslok..Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh stated that while he could not oppose taking a prisoner for treatment, he was objecting to the petitioner being given a choice of hospital. Singh's contention was that Navlakha could be taken to a government hospital like TATA Memorial Centre, renowned for its cancer treatment. .Terming such opposition "vindictive", Chaudhry argued that there was no reason for opposition in the present case, as Navlakha would be visiting the hospital at his own expense and there would be no financial burden on the State.When the Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar pointed out to Chaudhry that there was no pleading in the petition that he had filed, and that he could file a separate application in order to get an order from the Court, Chaudhry conceded for TATA."When your client tells you there is a lump which could possibly be cancer, you don't want such delays" Chaudhry submitted. .The Bench recorded Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde's statement that Navlakha would be taken for a medical examination on Friday. .Chaudhry's oral request for examination came in a petition filed by Navlakha seeking transfer from prison to judicial custody through house arrest. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in his default bail case, Navlakha moved the High Court pointing out that he was being denied basic medical and other necessities in Taloja Central Prison and was suffering great hardships at his advanced age. .In his petition, Navlakha submitted that he had an unblemished public service record and no criminal antecedents. He highlighted that he had been under house arrest for 35 days before being protected from arrest and thereafter for over 1 year and 7 months without any prejudice having been caused to the investigation agencies. "It is extremely significant to note that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have never considered the petitioner (Navlakha) likely to abscond and have therefore consistently protected from arrest," his petition underscored. .Navlakha has stated that with 15 accused persons, chargesheet spanning over 30,000 pages and over 150 witnesses, to continue to subject him to incarceration till the end of the trial is completed, would be extremely unjust, harsh and cruel.