Teesta Setalvad's Plea : FIR Doesn't Say Anything More Than SC Judgment, Why HC Listed Bail After 6 Weeks? Supreme Court To Gujarat Police

The Supreme Court on Thursday posed several questions to the State of Gujarat regarding the case against social activist Teesta Setalvad, who is under custody since June 25 over alleged fabrication of documents to file cases in relation to 2002 Gujarat riots.A bench led by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit at one point of the hearing even indicated that it will grant interim bail to Teesta Setalvad but ultimately adjourned the hearing to tomorrow at 2 PM at the repeated requests made by Solicitor General of India Tushar MehtaThe bench consisting of CJI, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, which was hearing Teesta's petition challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant her interim bail, said that "four or five features of the case bothers us". The bench pointed out following features :The petitioner has been under custody for over 2 months. No chargesheet has been filed.The FIR was registered on the very next day of the Supreme Court dismissing Zakia Jafri's case and the FIR does not recite much anything other than the SC observations.The Gujarat High Court while issuing notice on Teesta's bail plea on August 3 granted a long adjournment, making the notice returnable by 6 weeks.The offences alleged are not serious like murder or bodily injury but pertain to alleged forging of documents filed in court.There are no offences which bar the grant of bail.The hearing witnessed extensive interactions between CJI Lalit, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (appearing for Teesta) and SG Tushar Mehta.Chief Justice of India UU Lalit also orally remarked that the offences alleged against Teesta are normal IPC offences, having no bar on grant of bail. "There is no offence in this case which comes with a rider that bail cannot be granted, like UAPA, POTA. These are normal IPC offences…These are not offences of bodily offences, these are offences of documents filed in court. In these matters, normal idea is, after the initial period of police custody, there is nothing which stop the investigators from conducting investigation without custody…And as per Section 437 mandate, a lady is entitled to favourable treatment." The CJI continued, "FIR as it stands is nothing more of what happened in the Court. So, is there any additional material apart from what was in Supreme Court judgement? In last two months, have you filed chargesheet or is the investigation going on? What material have you found in past two months? Number one, lady has completed two months of custody. Number 2, you have had custodial interrogation. Is there anything you have elicited out of that?" "In a matter like this, High Court issues notice on August 3 and makes it returnable on September 19? So, 6 weeks a bail matter is made returnable?" the CJI wondered. The CJI asked if this is the standard practice in Gujarat High Court. "Give us a case where a lady has been involved in a case like this and HC has made it returnable by 6 weeks?"."No lady to my knowledge has committed similar type of offences," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded.The bench made the remark about the long adjournment given by the High Court in response to the Solicitor General's argument that this was not an exceptional case where the Supreme Court should intervene. It also expressed inclination to grant interim bail and continue to hear the matter on merits. The CJI also asked the SG about exact "tenor and direction" of the investigation. "What struck us is, your complaint doesn't recite anything more than SC judgement. So, if the judgement is out on 24th June, 25th complaint is out. The officer who made the complaint, he was not privy to knowledge other than that. Within one day a complaint came to be filed…There are four or five features that bother us"SG's comments on recourse to Article 136 for Bail The Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection to the Supreme Court entertaining Teesta's bail plea under Article 136 jurisdiction. "My first contention is that all this must go before the High Court, like any other ordinary accused would…I feel very strongly about it so pardon me for saying this. In a fact situation of this nature, if any other normal litigant had rushed to this court, would they have got entertained? There are thousands or thousands other litigants are waiting… For large number of accused, these dates are given. But all accused are not powerful enough to generate this kind of perception." He added, "There is no case where an accused has rushed to this court under 136 and relief granted. State wants no special treatment for any accused. No special treatment needs to be given to the petitioner…State would like to follow the rule of law, the equality of law."Courtroom ExchangeTeesta has approached the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant her interim bail. She was arrested on June 26 from Mumbai by the Gujarat ATS, a day after the Supreme Court...

Teesta Setalvad's Plea : FIR Doesn't Say Anything More Than SC Judgment, Why HC Listed Bail After 6 Weeks? Supreme Court To Gujarat Police

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags