New Delhi, Sep 1 : The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its concern over the Gujarat High Court hearing the bail application of activist Teesta Setalvad, imposed a notice to return the bail within six weeks and requested the Gujarat government to put to the record all specifics of cases in which, in the case of women the court has granted an extended adjournment.In the course of the hearing, the highest court made an oral statement in the event that it decided to give bail to Setalvad however, it was unable to issue an order.
Setalvad is in custody since June 25, allegedly for fabricating documents to implicate officials with high positions, including Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots case in Gujarat.
A bench, chaired by Chief Justice U.U.Lalit, and comprised of Justices S.Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, following a hearing of his arguments, that “we are not yet able to obtain the evidence against her” and further stated that the petitioner was in custody for more than 2 months.
The high court had issued a notice on the 3rd of August regarding her bail request and granted her a long adjournment, making the returnable within six weeks.
The court instructed Mehta as the representative of the Gujarat government, to provide cases where women have been held for charges like this and the time limit granted by the high court will be six weeks.
It asked: “Are you making an exception in the case of the lady.how can HC allow notice to be returned within six weeks.Is that the norm in the High Court?”
After hearing the arguments of Mehta in detail The bench then said: “If we give interim bail and set the case for September 19.”.In response, Mehta said: “I strongly disagree, and I believe it’s more serious than a murder trial.”
Chief Justice Lalit orally observed that violations against Setalvad are typical IPC offenses, with no bar on the granting of bail.
“These are not crimes such as bodily injury or murder but are based on documents such as forgery or fraud.In these instances, the standard concept is that after the normal police custody has ended there is no reason that police can do to demand upon custody .”.
The Chief Justice further questioned that the FIR was only a summary of what took place in the supreme court Is there any additional information other than the apex court’s judgment?
After a thorough hearing, the supreme court set the matter for a second hearings in the afternoon at 2 p.m.on Friday.
The hearing was concluded when the Chief Justice stated: “Give us instances where the person being who is being accused in these cases has received dates from the High Court.Perhaps this lady has been given an exception or not.” .”.Mehta stated that for men and women they have the same dates.
The highest court was hearing a bail appeal by Setalvad.
On June 24 on June 24, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by Zakia Jafri, the wife of Congress head Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the riots in Ahmedabad’s Gulberg Society in 2002, protesting against the SIT’s clean-chit to the Chief Minister at the time Modi and others in the violence in the state.
A bench composed of Justice A.M.Khanwilkar (now retired) stated that the present proceeding has been ongoing for more than 16 years (from the submission of complaint in June of 2006 that amounted to 67 pages ) and ended by the filing of a 514-page protest petition on April 15 13th, 2013) including with the courage to question the credibility of each and every person who was involved in the process of uncovering the devious strategy used.”To keep the kettle boiling, evidently to conceal a plot.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 said.
ss/vd
