[BREAKING] Teesta Setalvad granted interim bail by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to activist Teesta Setalvad after she was arrested by the Gujarat Police accusing her of fabricating documents to frame high-ranking officials including then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Godhra riots cases..The order was passed by a bench of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia after Setalvad moved the top court against a Gujarat High Court order which had given a long adjournment in Setalvad's bail plea while not passing any order of interim bail."It must be said that matter is still pending before High Court. We are, therefore, not considering whether Setalvad is released on bail or not and High Court shall decide the same. We are only on during pendency of such application, should the custody of appellant be insisted upon or be granted interim bail. Thus we grant Teesta Setalvad interim bail," the Court ordered.The Supreme Court said that the Gujarat High Court should have considered the application for interim bail during pendency of the matter since custodial interrogation had been complete."The essential ingredient of custodial interrogation being completed the matter of interim bail should have been heard," the apex court opined.While granting interim bail, the Court noted that Setalvad was in police custody for 7 days and thereafter in judicial custody."Following aspects have emerged. Appellant a lady has been in custody since June 25. Offences alleged pertain to the period from 2002-2012. This is going by assertions, at best the concerned documents date to 2012. Investigating machinery had the advantage of custodial interrogation for 7 days followed by judicial custody," the Court observed.It, therefore, proceeded to grant interim to Setalvad."Setalvad shall be produced before concerned court and she shall be released on interim bail with conditions as the court thinks fit. Appellant shall surrender her passport in the concerned court till the High Court decides her bail application," the top court directed.During the hearing of the matter yesterday, the Court had asked the State of Gujarat to produce details of cases/ precedents in which the Gujarat High Court has given long adjournments as was done in the present bail plea.Setalvad's plea before High Court is listed for hearing on September 19 and she cited the long adjournment to move the top court.When the matter was taken up today, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta produced orders passed by High Courts in which long dates were given.He said that Setalvad was not singled out and this has been the uniform practice in High Court in similar cases."I will show what High Court does uniformly with others. A week before this case, there were 124 cases and on the date of this order there were 168 cases. Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court has introduced auto list methodIt was not like the petitioner was singled out and the case was posted after 6 weeks. Here is an order of a lady Saiyeda Bibi etc where dates are in October," he said.On the merits of allegations against Setalvad, the SG said there is sufficient material apart from FIR pointing towards involvement of appellant in the offences alleged.In this regard, he said that there are witness statements clearly making out a case against Setalvad."I am submitting two statements under Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC before you which reveals a prima facie case against the accused and how it was done with a motive," he said.He also contended that Setalvad has maligned the Gujarat government and judiciary."This lady has maligned the entire State, the State judiciary, the High court. you cannot say something like this behind the back of Gujarat High Court judge."Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Setalvad, rebutted the arguments including the witness statements cited by the SG."This person who is the witness has gone to all courts where trial was being conducted so that his statement is recorded. This was also influenced. Court had dismissed his statement. In Naroda Gam case court noted that the intention of statement was different. Then the statement by him Gulberg case was also dismissed and he was restrained from making statements. These are the Section 164 statements given to you," Sibal said.He also maintained that Setalvad has been targeted because she acted against the State. "Basically I am motivated, NHRC is motivated. This matter came to this court and relief was granted. The matter is pending. SG Mehta should have told matter is pending. There is no allegation that I have tampered with any witness statement ever," he stated..BackgroundThe Court was hearing a bail plea filed by Setalvad after she was arrested for allegedly fabricating documents to frame high-ranking officials including then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Godhra riots cases.The top court had issued notice to the Gujarat government on August 22, seeking its response.Setalvad moved the Supreme Court seeking bail after she was arrested earlier this year.Setalvad's arrest came after a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had made adverse remarks against her on June 24 while dismissing the plea by Zakia Jafri, wife of slain Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the 2002 Gujarat Riots. Zakia Jafri had challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision of 2017 upholding the magistrate's decision to accept the closure report filed by the SIT in the case.While dismissing the plea, the top court had made observations against Setalvad and former DGP Sreekumar, terming them "disgruntled".The Court said that there was a coalesced effort by them to create a sensation by making revelations that were false to their own knowledge.Subsequently, Setalvad was arrested by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad from Mumbai and taken to Gujarat. Sreekumar was also arrested from Gujarat.On July 30, an Ahmedabad sessions court refused to grant bail to Setalvad, noting that she and other accused appeared to have aimed to “destabilise” the Gujarat government and defame the State for ulterior motives.Setalvad then moved the Gujarat High Court for bail. On August 2, the Gujarat High Court had issued notice to the Special Investigation Team (SIT), asking it to respond to bail applications filed by Setalvad and former Gujarat Director General of Police (DGP) RB Sreekumar. The matter is slated to be heard by the High Court on September 19.It is this long gap for the next hearing date that Setalvad took objection to, in her appeal before the top court.She submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI, bail matters must be heard expeditiously."Despite the same, the first date fixed by Hon'ble High Court in the present case is after one and a half months," her plea said.In its response, the State government in its affidavit contended that the ocular and documentary evidence collected by the SIT during its investigation provide ample grounds to support the allegation of larger conspiracy by Setalvad others."The same clearly established a prima facie case against the petitioner for an offence which serious enough and entails maximum punishment for life," the reply stated.Witnesses have stated that to further ends of the larger conspiracy, Setalvad generated false evidence and made false charges invoking the names of persons other than those stated by the victims and various riot cases, it was further contended..During the hearing of the case yesterday, the top court had made some strong observations against the Gujarat High Court's order of adjournment, noting that the High Court had issued notice on Setalvad's plea on August 2 but posted the matter for further hearing after 6 weeks on September 19."Give us a case where a lady is in confinement on charges like this and the High Court has given a date like this. What is normal pattern in bail cases like this," the bench had asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta who was representing the State government.The Court had also observed then that this was not a case of murder or bodily injury and bail is the rule in such cases especially in view of the fact that the accused is a lady.The Court had also said that the complaint which trigged the probe was nothing but the Supreme Court's June 24 judgment. "Your complaint is nothing but judgment of Supreme Court. Verdict is on June 24 and that day is the complaint," the bench had orally remarked..Arguments today.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the listing of Setalvad's matter for September 19 was not improper and the High Court has done in other bail matters as well."I will show what High Court does uniformly with others. A week before this case, there were 124 cases and on the date of this order there were 168 cases. Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court has introduced auto list method, where in bail applications some documents etc are filed and jailed person does not know so auto list helps. The Gujarat High Court has continued with the uniform practice in this case and this is a realistic way," he said.However, the CJI said that none of the cases involved a lady as accused."There is no matter of lady here," the CJI remarked."There are 28 cases in which the same judge has given dates like giving bail in two days," Setalvad's counsel Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said."This lady has maligned the entire State, the State judiciary, the High court. you cannot say something like this behind the back of Gujarat High Court judge," the SG responded.He maintained that the petitioner was not singled out in any way."It was not like the petitioner was singled out and the case was posted after 6 weeks. Here is an order of a lady Saiyeda Bibi etc where dates are in October. This maligning campaign of State being a State of rapists etc has been going on," Mehta argued.The CJI, however, asked Mehta to confine to the submissions in the present case.."Sometimes the position of High Court judge is precarious where they are abused left right centre but they cannot defend themselves. Impression that Setalvad was singled out is wrong," SG emphasised.He also said that the hearing date in High Court can be advanced to an earlier day but the plea by Setalvad before top court should not be entertained."I have instructions to say that the judge disposes of 30 to 40 bail matters on a single day. The date in HC can be advanced. But please don't entertain this plea as it would set a very incorrect precedent," SG Mehta argued..On the merits of the case against Setalvad, the SG proceeded to trace the history of the Zakia Jafri case."Please see the background of litigation. It was alleged that at the behest of Zakia Jafri a complaint was filed and that complaint was false. Closure report was filed. Then protest petition was rejected and session court judgment was accepted. Then Supreme Court upheld both the orders. This means there was some conspiracy. We always had the material against her," the SG said.He also claimed how 21 witnesses had come with pre-typed statement before the SIT which probe the matter. "Those 21 came with pre-typed statement which SIT did not accept and questions were asked. It was revealed that the statements were manufactured. The Supreme Court judgment only was on this." .Mehta, to buttress his argument on conspiracy, then proceeded to place before the Court certain witness statements."Who were the people who conspired and who was part of the conspiracy. I am submitting two statements under Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC before you which reveals a prima facie case against the accused and how it was done with a motive," he said and handed over the statement to the bench."How did you get the Section 164 statement? It has to be in sealed cover. It has to come from the court and from the custody of the magistrate," the bench asked. "We requested the court and it is from the court. The investigative officer is here," the SG replied.."Were these witnesses examined in the trial.. these who has given Section 161 and 164 statements," the Court queried."Number one is examined, Number two is new," Mehta replied."How many were examined?" asked the CJI. "None," said Sibal."There was no trial," advocate Aparna Bhat weighed in.."Page 38 is another statement of another person who actually paid money. A total of ₹8 crores was collected.. separate proceedings are on. Wines, branded items, Dubai duty-free products were purchased from this," Mehta claimed.The SG also contended that some of the earlier judges hearing the matter were made to recuse. "Earlier judges were made to recuse by planted articles. Question is would this court make this case to be an exception under Article 136. If falsification etc is done with court documents then court will look into but if its outside then probe can be outside. Please do not lay down a precedent which cannot be corrected," he said.The bench then asked what has emerged from Setalvad's custodial interrogation."She is an intelligent lady. She did not divulge. She did not cooperate," the SG replied."How long did you interrogate her?" CJI Lalit queried. "7 days," the SG said. .The CJI pointed out that nobody had testified under oath before the SIT."The moment person is in witness box, he testifies under oath. No one testified under oath before SIT. What we gather is after this type written sheet till the time the man was put on trial and examined and then examined as witness.. is there allegation that lady put pressure?" the CJI asked."Not at the moment. These considerations should be looked into by the High Court. It will be an exceptionally bad precedent if this court looks into it, it is falsification of evidence and cooking up of witness. What is there to be shown in this?" the SG said.."Please see this compilation. These are orders from the same judge," Senior Counsel Sibal said. But Mehta interjected leading to a war of words between him and Sibal."But how can this be pointed out..this is going on since 2002. maligning campaign has to be stopped," he said"This is shocking, what are you saying?" Sibal asked."This lady alleged that she saw a woman being raped by her own father in law and that lady later said it is false," Mehta claimed. "This is shocking. you have an extreme interest in keeping her behind the bars," Sibal replied."Please don't allow such allegations against the institution," the SG said."We do not expect such things from law officers. I have also been a law officer! This person who is the witness has gone to all courts where trial was being conducted so that his statement is recorded. This was also influenced. Court had dismissed his statement. In Naroda Gam case court noted that the intention of statement was different. Then the statement by him Gulberg case was also dismissed and he was restrained from making statements. These are the Section 164 statements given to you," Sibal said as regards the witness statement which SG Mehta had earlier submitted to Court.He said that Setalvad has been targeted because she acted in public interest.He also pointed out how the investigation was set rolling due to NHRC orders and also pointed out how the top court had granted relief."Basically I am motivated, NHRC is motivated. This matter came to this court and relief was granted. The matter is pending. SG Mehta should have told matter is pending. There is no allegation that I have tampered with any witness statement ever," he stated.Sibal maintained that his client has been targeted because she acted against the State."All these cases they have targeted me and this is yet another attempt. I am State's number one enemy. Who can be more powerful than the state.. that too a lady..She is a 60 year old lady," Sibal said.Sibal also maintained that Setalvad had not made any statement against any institution or judge. [Read Order]