New Delhi, Sep 2 : A day after expressing concern over the inability of Gujarat High Court on hearing activist Teesta Setalvad’s bail request The Supreme Court on Friday granted her bail for a period of time.Setalvad was arrested on suspicion of fabricating documents to frame high-ranking officials including Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots case in the state.
He was in custody since the 25th of June.
A bench, chaired by Chief Justice U.U.Lalit, and comprised of Justices S.Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, stated that since the necessary interrogation in the custodial process is completed and the issue of the interim bail must have been considered and also noted that her bail application is pending with the Gujarat High Court.
“We give Teesta Setalvad interim bail,”” the judge said.
It also instructed Setalvad to surrender her passport in the trial court, and clarified that the court will make a decision on her bail plea on a regular basis and not be influenced by the ruling.
The highest court ordered that she be present on a Saturday in front of the relevant trial court, which will allow her to be released under bail subject to the conditions that it can be able to impose.
During the hearing during the hearing, an advocate senior Kapil Sibal, who represented Setalvad, argued that the authorities are genuinely concerned in ensuring that his client does not go out of bail.”I am the number one enemy of the state,” said Sibal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, disagreed with Sibal’s arguments and claimed that Setalvad had the capability of manipulating witnesses in the case.
Sibal responded: Sibal responded: “How can she be more powerful than the state .”, and stressed that the allegations made in the FIR filed against him are nothing more than repetition of proceedings that concluded with the ruling of the Apex Court on June 24 and no charge was pronounced against her.
Mehta asked the apex court not create the precedent of a “very dangerous precedent” by giving a disproportionate treatment to Setalvad in a time when the supreme court is in control of the matter.
After hearing the arguments in depth the court’s top judge said the plaintiff, “a lady”, is in custody since the 25th of June and the charges against her are from 2002, and the documents cited date back to 2012 .It also stated that the investigating machine has had the benefit of interrogation in custody of seven days, and following that she was transferred to the judicial custody.
“Having looked at the circumstances that are recorded, in our view, the high court should consider the petition for interim bail release during the duration of the case,” noted the bench.The bench further stated that relief of interim bail should have been granted until the issue was decided by the high court.
The top court urged the court of appeal to rule on her bail plea, however in the meantime, Setalvad is out on bail for an interim period.She was able to petition the apex court after Gujarat High Court made a lengthy adjournment to her bail application, without making any decision of interim bail.
In light of the time-limit of her bail plea in the court of appeals, the judge stated: “We are not therefore considering whether the appellant was granted bail or not.The issue will be considered by the high court.”
The hearing was concluded.in the matter, the bench stated: “Having bestowed our attention to all pertinent aspects of the mattera.the appellant is entitled to relief of interim bail.”
On a demand made by the Additional Solicitor General S.V.Raju, the court’s top judge also stated that the another co-accused in the case should not benefit of the relief that was granted to Setalvad.
“It is further clarified that relief of interim bail is granted to the appellant in the unique circumstances and circumstances, such as the fact that she happens to be a woman,” it said.
The next day, the supreme court informed Mehta that the court had issued a notice on August 3 regarding her bail request and also granted a lengthy adjournment.This made the notice returnable for 6 weeks, and requested to hear instances where women have been held for charges similar to this and the time period given by the supreme court is six weeks.
The bench had questioned: “Are you making an exception in the case of this woman.what is the best way to HC make the notice returnable within six weeks.
Is that the norm in the highest court?”
“These are not crimes such as bodily injury or murder but are based on documents, such as forgery or fraud.In these cases, the usual notion is that once the normal police custody has ended there is no reason to force the police on the custody of the suspect.”.The Chief Justice also asked whether the FIR was nothing more of the proceedings in the supreme court, is there any additional information aside from the apex court decision?
On June 24 on June 24, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by Zakia Jafri, the wife of Congress head Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the riots in Ahmedabad’s Gulberg Society in 2002, contesting the SIT’s clean chit to then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other officials during the violence in Gujarat.
A bench comprised of Justice A.M.Khanwilkar (now retired) declared that the current proceedings have been pursuing for the more than 16 years “including with the audacity to question the credibility of each person who is involved in the process of uncovering the devious strategy employed”.
“To ensure that the kettle is boiling to further design.
As an issue of fact, everyone involved in this kind of overuse of procedure, must be in the dock and dealt with in conformity with the law,” it had said.
ss/vd
