Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The allegations of money exchange are “absolutely false” and “much has been sought to be made in the public domain to the extent that some money was taken”, arrested activist Teesta Setalvad submitted during a hearing of her bail plea before an Ahmedabad sessions court Monday.
Refuting the submissions made by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing her and others in a case of alleged forgery and fabrication of evidence, the Mumbai-activist’s counsel Advocate Somnath Vatsa pointed out that a Supreme Court order from February 2013 had cited a 2011 order of the apex court, both of which has been included in the final SC verdict of June 24 that dismissed the plea by Zakia Jafri and upheld the SIT’s clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi—the then Gujarat chief minister—and others in cases related to the 2002 riots. Vatsa argued that the then SIT investigating the 2002 riots had the mandate to look into/investigate/inquire with respect to the allegations made by Zakia. Despite the said mandate, between 2002 and 2022, no proceedings were initiated by the SIT against Teesta. “SC verdict praises SIT at many places, then its (SIT’s) wisdom too must be appreciated (for not initiating proceedings against Setalvad, RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt, who are accused in the present FIR of June 25, 2022)… There was no reason for them (SIT) to not report (the malfeasance by the accused),” Vatsa submitted.
Opposing Setalvad’s bail plea, the SIT’s affidavit had, based on a single witness account, alleged that she had received Rs 30 lakh “on instruction” from then Congress Rajya Sabha MP late Ahmed Patel.
Vatsa also submitted that charges of IPC Sections 468 and 471 (forgery and using a forged document as genuine) were “not made” in the SIT affidavit opposing the bail plea. The advocate also stated that the prosecution “has to show from the documents in the protest petition which (points) at the ‘larger conspiracy’ (as has been alleged by the SIT).”
Stressed the “concept of finality of proceedings”, Vatsa said that “a matter cannot be revisited again and again, all the time,” while pointing out that SIT’s allegations with respect to past criminal antecedents of Setalvad “has already received judicial consideration” at various courts, including trial courts, and she has been accorded protection accordingly.
Meanwhile, arguing for retired DGP RB Sreekumar’s bail, advocate SM Vora submitted that he “was in service upto 2007”. Vora also pointed to Sreekumar’s ailing health as a ground for granting bail.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
