Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Sept 2: Despite stiff opposition from the centre’s solicitor general Tushar Mehta, the Supreme Court on Friday granted activist Teesta Setalvad, in jail since June, interim bail in a case of alleged forgery and fabrication of records in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The Gujarat police had arrested her in June over allegations of “a conspiracy to destabilise the Gujarat government after the 2002 riots.” After her bail plea was dismissed by a local court in Ahmedabad in July, she’d gone to the Gujarat High Court, which on August 3 posted her plea to six weeks later — a timeline the top court didn’t particularly appreciate in its order on Friday. Ms Setalvad had appealed to the Supreme Court against both the lower court and High Court orders.\
A three-judge Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit said a case of interim bail is “evidently made out” on consideration of the facts that she is a woman who has already undergone seven days of custodial interrogation and the police had already got enough time to interrogate her.
The court noted that Ms Setalvad has been in custody for over two months since her arrest in Mumbai by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad on June 25. The court noted that the offences alleged against her pertain to the year 2002 and, as per the assertions made by the State, to documents presented till 2012. The court also observed that she was in jail for more than two months, yet no charge-sheet had been filed against her.
The court’s tone was consistent with its comments in the case on Thursday when it said there was “no offence in this case over court which bail cannot be granted”, that too when “she is a lady.” Her petition for regular bail and quashing of the FIR will continue to be in the High Court, though. “The HC ought to have considered the plea for interim bail during the pendency of the matter,” said the Supreme Court bench which was also comprised of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia besides the CJI.
“Having considered the circumstances on record, in our view, the High Court ought to have considered the prayer for release on interim bail during the pendency of the matter before it… The essential ingredients of the investigation, including custodial interrogation, having been completed, the matter assumed a complexion when the release of the appellant on interim bail till the matter was considered by the High Court was evidently made out… The appellant is entitled to the relief of interim bail,” the Supreme Court ordered.
The Bench, in its order, said her interim bail would continue till the Gujarat High Court decided her pending application for regular bail in the case. The Supreme Court directed Gujarat to produce Ms Setalvad before the Ahmedabad Court concerned on September 3 for release on interim bail. She is likely to walk out of jail on Saturday after completion of formalities.
When the court session began, Mehta produced a chart of other cases in which the Gujarat High Court had given dates in September and even October, like in Ms Setalvad’s case. Mehta, who had earlier claimed that Ms Setalvad’s offence was “even more serious than murder,” accused her of orchestrating a “maligning campaign” since 2002. He reiterated that the apex court should not intervene and, instead, allow her to take her chances in the High Court.
The SC bench said the lower court may subject her to interim bail conditions it “may deem appropriate to ensure her presence and participation in the pending proceedings.” She would have to surrender her passport to be kept in the safe custody of the lower court while the High Court considered the question of regular bail. She should render complete cooperation in the investigation, the apex court directed.
On a request by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Ms Setalvad, the apex court directed the lower court not to insist on local security as a precondition for her release on interim bail. The court said she should be released on providing cash security or bond.
“It speaks volumes that a lady of her influence thinks she may not find a single local person in the entire State of Gujarat to stand security for her,” the Solicitor General said after the order was dictated by the court. “That may equally speak volumes about the State,” Sibal retorted.
The case against her is connected to some Supreme Court observations, of June 24. She was arrested just two days after the court junked a plea by her and Zakia Jafri — whose husband Ehsan Jafri, a former MP, was killed in the riots — in which they’d challenged a probe that cleared prime minister Narendra Modi who then was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, of any wrongdoing.
This plea was “to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design”, the bench had then remarked, citing the state’s arguments. It also said, “All those involved in such abuse of process need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law.”
This was used by the police as a basis for the FIR against Ms Setalvad. “But the FIR has nothing more than the court observations,” according to her lawyer, Kapil Sibal. She’s accused of forging documents to file cases over the 2002 riots, but the police have not specified which documents, he told the court during hearing on Thursday. Cops even say she exploited an elderly Zakia Jafri’s emotions, though Ms Jafri hasn’t said no such thing.
The Bench left it completely to the High Court to look into her pending plea for regular bail, “independently and uninfluenced” by the observations made by the Supreme Court in its interim bail order. The court further made clear that the interim bail order in favour of Ms Setalvad should not be “used” in favour of her co-accused. When the occasion arises for them, their pleas for bail would be considered on its own individual merits.