New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday granted regular bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with a forgery case linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Gujarat government strongly opposed her bail plea saying that Setalvad committed a "heinous crime by involving persons, including high dignitaries, in a crime to which they were unconnected, by furnishing false affidavits".
A three-judge bench comprising justices B R Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, and Dipankar Dutta observed: "Most of the evidence in the case is documentary evidence, which is in possession of investigating agency…chargesheet already filed…no need for her custody…we allow the appeal and the impugned order (Gujarat High Court order) is quashed and set aside…appellant is directed to be continued on bail."
The top court observed that the observations in the high court order denying her bail are "perverse" and added that since the chargesheet has been filed and her custodial interrogation completed, she should be granted bail. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Setalvad, contended that the chargesheet in the matter has been filed and his client has not interfered with the investigation or influenced anybody and also, there was no question of running away or tampering with evidence.
Sibal emphasized that since September last year, when Setalvad was granted interim bail by the apex court, "she has not violated her bail conditions, so why deny her bail now?" Sibal asked how did they arrest Setalvad? Judgment by the apex court does not name her? If the person who has allegedly fabricated an affidavit - provided a false statement - has not been accused and arrested alongside her, why has she been singled out?
Also read: Fabrication of evidence case: Gujarat govt opposes discharge plea of Teesta Setalvad
Sibal said from 2002 to 2022, they have not said anything and no one has said that and that itself is enough, and the problem arises in form of Rais Khan, a prime witness, who was working with Setalvad and she terminated his services and since then, he has been filing complaint after complaint against her and his complaint forms basis of all this. Khan was a former close aide of Setalvad who later fell out with her in 2008.
The bench observed that on the one hand, the high court says it will not go into the merit and on the other hand the court goes into it. "It is self-contradictory," the bench observed. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Gujarat government, submitted "let us ignore it now". The bench replied that "how can you ignore one part of judgment and focus on another for bail, one has to see whether prima facie case is made out, and if flight risk is there and if the person can tamper evidence". The apex court further queried, how the high court could have considered those issues.
Justice Gavai said if the authorities' contentions were to be accepted, then the Definition of Evidence Act would be rendered moot. The bench told Raju, “Definition of Evidence Act would have to be thrown in the dustbin if your contention has to be accepted. We're only putting you on guard that if you delve more into it, we will have to make observations…..”. The bench said, “Initially, we were feeling that there was a case under [Section] 194. Now we think the case under Section 194 is suspect…..”.
ASG Raju submitted that the judgment was based on submissions of the SIT and "false allegations were made against high dignitaries and money was taken from the Congress party", which was corroborated by Narendra Bhramhabhatt, while emphasizing that Setalvad has committed a "serious offence". An allegation has been made in the chargesheet that Setalvad had received Rs 30 lakh from a Congress leader.
During the hearing, the bench asked Raju what investigation have done since June last year when the FIR was registered that there was a need to arrest her and what were you doing from 2008-2011, “please tell us for what purpose you need her custody…”
Justice Datta queried Raju, do you want a person to be an undertrial till the trial court completes the trial? Raju replied this is a case where punishment is life. On July 5, the Supreme Court extended the interim bail granted to Setalvad till the next hearing on July 19. Earlier, on July 1, the apex court had protected her from arrest and put the high court order on hold.
The top court was hearing Setalvad's petition against the Gujarat High Court order, which asked her to surrender in a case of alleged fabrication of evidence to frame innocents in 2002 post-Godhra riots cases. The high court denied her plea for regular bail.
