Teesta Setalvad gets anticipatory bail, HC says she is not a threat to national security

“A citizen may conduct social activities and may have a different point of view, which may not be liked by the government. However, in a democratic state, a citizen may have his or her point of view,” Justice Bhatkar said, adding that it is the duty of the state to protect such views.

[related-post]

“If the prosecution says it is a snake, the court has to distinguish if it is a snake or a rope. Even if it is a snake, the court has to further see if it is a poisonous or a non-poisonous snake. And even then if it is a poisonous snake, the court has to decide if can be fatal,” it observed.

It is alleged that the Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace, run by the couple, received foreign funds without government approval and the amount was diverted to Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt Ltd. The FIR was lodged after the Home Ministry found alleged discrepancies by the two NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). Teesta and Anand were accused of embezzlement of around $290,000 between 2004 and 2008.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, along with public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde, argued that Teesta and her husband have criminal antecedents in Gujarat. He argued that her trust acted like an “agent” in India for the US-based Ford Foundation. Therefore, these acts were a threat to the sovereignty of the nation and its secular democracy, it was argued.

But the court observed that there is no threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the state, nor to its security, strategy or economic interest. “The submissions made by the ASG that it is a threat to secular democracy cannot be appreciated,” said Justice Bhatkar.

Appearing for the applicants, senior lawyers Aspi Chinoy and Mihir Desai said, “It is well known that several convictions were made after the 2002 riots with the assistance of documents made available by Sabrang trust.” They argued that the FIR against the couple was a fallout of those convictions.

Chinoy argued that most allegations in the CBI’s FIR against the couple are “Kafkaesque” in nature. He argued that the allegations were of disturbing communal harmony and pluralism in the country, but there was no basis for the same.

On the allegations of receiving foreign funds, the court said, “Prima facie, after going through the submission of the prosecution… it appears there may be some kind of misuse of the amount.”

The court allowed the couple to furnish one surety of Rs 20,000 in case they are arrested.