Express News Service
NEW DELHI: After almost two months of incarceration, the Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who has been accused of allegedly fabricating false evidence to implicate high state officials in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia has also directed for producing her tomorrow before the Magistrate and releasing her on conditions which the trial court deems appropriate. She has been asked to surrender her passport till the matter is heard by the Gujarat HC and ensure complete cooperation.
Considering Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s contention that it would be difficult for her to get surety, the court has also asked the trial court to consider granting her bail on submission of cash surety rather than local surety.
“Entire matter on merits shall be considered by the HC independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. It is further made clear that relief has been granted in a peculiar case and that she happens to be a lady. This shall not be used by other accused as and when the occasion arises,” the court has also noted in its order.
Appearing for Teesta, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had submitted that the facts in the FIR were nothing but recitation of the proceedings which ended with judgement and order dated June 24, 2022. It was also Sibal’s contention that the offence against the Teesta was not even made out and as such there was prima facie case in favour of the appellant. He had also stressed the fact that she was in custody for more than 2 months and was thus entitled to the relief of interim bail during the pendency of application before the Gujarat High Court.
“I have not alleged the judge, judiciary. I’m not doing anything. I don’t expect this from a law officer. This is all motivated. Even if they are typed, how can forgery come into this? If forgery comes then the person who complains of forgery must come to court. But the state is coming here and saying. This is malicious and motivated and what I did was in the larger interest of the public. This has led to my incarceration. These affidavits have been filed in some other cases,” Sibal further asserted.
Opposing Teesta’s bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat submitted that since her plea challenging the rejection of bail was pending before the Gujarat High Court, the matter must be allowed to be considered by the High Court. He further contended that apart from the FIR, there was additional evidence that pointed towards the involvement of Teesta.
Stressing on the allegations of falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses which were levelled against her, SG said, “Allegations is a falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses, that’s precise which we are investigating. Your lordship has seen the nature of the conspiracy. It’s not ending with the petitioner. It’s starting with the petitioner. These are powerful people involved. This has been going on since 2002. Maligning campaigns has to be stopped.” To further substantiate his contention, Mehta also referred to some statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of CrPC which prima facie pointed towards the fact that there was not some misunderstanding but a calculated conspiracy to achieve a particular goal.
Yesterday, the bench asked the State of Gujarat what kind of additional material could the state gather by keeping Teesta Setalvad in custody for two months.
“Has there been some additional material apart from the SC judgment? In the last 2 months, have you filed any charge sheet or something? We want to know what kind of material you have gathered within 2 months. Lady has completed more than 2 months of custody, is there anything which has been elicited out of custodial interrogation and today as the thing stands, FIR is nothing more than what has emerged in court,” CJI UU Lalit said.
Frowning upon the Gujarat HC’s August 3rd order of fixing a long date in her plea assailing the lower court’s order rejecting her bail, the bench also comprising Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “Give us instances, where a lady was accused in similar situations & HC, has issued notice returnable within six weeks. Is this standard practice in the State of Gujarat?”
The top judge was of the opinion that the FIR registered by Anti-Terrorism Squad, Gujarat was nothing but what the top court had said in Zakia Jafri’s judgment.
Within 24 hours of the SC dismissing the petition preferred by Zakia Jafri for a probe into a larger conspiracy case behind the riots, Gujarat ATS had arrested Teesta in FIR registered u/s 468, 471, 194, 211 and 120 B of IPC against her, Mr Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr RB Sreekumar.
Before the SC, Teesta had challenged order(s) dated July 30 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad of rejecting her bail and August 3, 2022, passed by Gujarat HC of fixing a long date in plea assailing lower court’s order.
She had argued in the petition that she strongly believed that she had been targeted by the State for raising critical issues before the Apex Court challenging the administration and providing support to the victims of riots.
NEW DELHI: After almost two months of incarceration, the Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who has been accused of allegedly fabricating false evidence to implicate high state officials in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia has also directed for producing her tomorrow before the Magistrate and releasing her on conditions which the trial court deems appropriate. She has been asked to surrender her passport till the matter is heard by the Gujarat HC and ensure complete cooperation.
Considering Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s contention that it would be difficult for her to get surety, the court has also asked the trial court to consider granting her bail on submission of cash surety rather than local surety.
“Entire matter on merits shall be considered by the HC independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. It is further made clear that relief has been granted in a peculiar case and that she happens to be a lady. This shall not be used by other accused as and when the occasion arises,” the court has also noted in its order.
Appearing for Teesta, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had submitted that the facts in the FIR were nothing but recitation of the proceedings which ended with judgement and order dated June 24, 2022. It was also Sibal’s contention that the offence against the Teesta was not even made out and as such there was prima facie case in favour of the appellant. He had also stressed the fact that she was in custody for more than 2 months and was thus entitled to the relief of interim bail during the pendency of application before the Gujarat High Court.
“I have not alleged the judge, judiciary. I’m not doing anything. I don’t expect this from a law officer. This is all motivated. Even if they are typed, how can forgery come into this? If forgery comes then the person who complains of forgery must come to court. But the state is coming here and saying. This is malicious and motivated and what I did was in the larger interest of the public. This has led to my incarceration. These affidavits have been filed in some other cases,” Sibal further asserted.
Opposing Teesta’s bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat submitted that since her plea challenging the rejection of bail was pending before the Gujarat High Court, the matter must be allowed to be considered by the High Court. He further contended that apart from the FIR, there was additional evidence that pointed towards the involvement of Teesta.
Stressing on the allegations of falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses which were levelled against her, SG said, “Allegations is a falsification of evidence, cooking up witnesses, that’s precise which we are investigating. Your lordship has seen the nature of the conspiracy. It’s not ending with the petitioner. It’s starting with the petitioner. These are powerful people involved. This has been going on since 2002. Maligning campaigns has to be stopped.” To further substantiate his contention, Mehta also referred to some statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of CrPC which prima facie pointed towards the fact that there was not some misunderstanding but a calculated conspiracy to achieve a particular goal.
Yesterday, the bench asked the State of Gujarat what kind of additional material could the state gather by keeping Teesta Setalvad in custody for two months.
“Has there been some additional material apart from the SC judgment? In the last 2 months, have you filed any charge sheet or something? We want to know what kind of material you have gathered within 2 months. Lady has completed more than 2 months of custody, is there anything which has been elicited out of custodial interrogation and today as the thing stands, FIR is nothing more than what has emerged in court,” CJI UU Lalit said.
Frowning upon the Gujarat HC’s August 3rd order of fixing a long date in her plea assailing the lower court’s order rejecting her bail, the bench also comprising Justices SR Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “Give us instances, where a lady was accused in similar situations & HC, has issued notice returnable within six weeks. Is this standard practice in the State of Gujarat?”
The top judge was of the opinion that the FIR registered by Anti-Terrorism Squad, Gujarat was nothing but what the top court had said in Zakia Jafri’s judgment.
Within 24 hours of the SC dismissing the petition preferred by Zakia Jafri for a probe into a larger conspiracy case behind the riots, Gujarat ATS had arrested Teesta in FIR registered u/s 468, 471, 194, 211 and 120 B of IPC against her, Mr Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr RB Sreekumar.
Before the SC, Teesta had challenged order(s) dated July 30 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad of rejecting her bail and August 3, 2022, passed by Gujarat HC of fixing a long date in plea assailing lower court’s order.
She had argued in the petition that she strongly believed that she had been targeted by the State for raising critical issues before the Apex Court challenging the administration and providing support to the victims of riots.
