SC overrules Gujarat objections, grants Teesta interim bail

However, the bench of Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia directed that Setalvad be produced Saturday before the trial court concerned which shall release her on bail subject to conditions that it may impose. It also asked her to surrender her passport.

Stating that it is not going into the merits of the case, the bench said: “For the present purpose…following aspects of the matter which emerge from the record, are of some importance.” It added that these were: “the applicant, a lady has been in custody since 25-6-2022”, that “the offences alleged against her pertain to the year 2002 and going by the assertions…concerned documents, were sought to be presented till the year 2012” and “the investigating machinery has had the advantage of custodial interrogation for a period of seven days. Thereafter judicial custody was ordered by concerned court”.

The SC said: “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. The essential ingredients of the investigation including custodial interrogation having been completed, the matter assumes a complexion where the relief of interim bail, till the matter was considered by the High Court, was evidently made out”.

Noting that the matter is still pending before the High Court, the SC said: “We are not therefore considering whether the appellant is released on bail or not. That issue will certainly be gone into by the High Court in the pending application before it. We are considering the matter only from the standpoint whether during the pendency of such application, the custody of the appellant be insisted upon or whether she be granted the relief of interim bail”.

The bench added: “Having bestowed our attention to all the relevant aspects of the matter, in our view, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of interim bail” and directed that she surrender her passport which shall be kept in custody by the concerned court till the matter is considered by the HC.

The court said other co-accused in the case shall not take advantage of the relief granted to Setalvad. “It is further made clear that the relief of interim bail is granted to the appellant in the peculiar facts, including the fact that she happens to be a lady. This shall not be taken to be a reflection and shall not be used by other accused, as and when such occasions arise. The submissions of the accused shall be considered purely on their own merits”.

Hearing the matter Thursday, the CJI had questioned why the HC had posted Setalvad’s bail plea for hearing September 19, almost six weeks after notice was issued on August 3 and asked if this was the standard practice in the HC.

On Friday, Mehta told the bench the message that had gone out from the query was “as if the HC deliberately singled out the petitioner” and claimed it was not so.

“Yesterday, inadvertently though, the message that is conveyed is as if HC deliberately singled out the petitioner. Your Lordships never meant that but that is how it got reported, and it was a matter of concern for me as well because it was my argument that nobody can be given special treatment”, he said.

The SG said he had “detailed discussion with the Public Prosecutor…I do not wish to prove anyone right or wrong. I just want to show that HC uniformly did what HC does with everyone”.

Mehta produced statistics to show that on August 3, there were other matters in which notices were issued returnable by the HC even for October.

He also referred to cases of ladies in which similar notices were issued by the court and said “it was not like the petitioner was singled out”.

Intervening, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Setalvad, said he had a list of cases in which the court had granted bail in two days.

Reacting sharply, Mehta said: “This petitioner has maligned an entire state since 2002, has maligned all institutions since 2002, that this is not trustworthy judge…High Court of Gujarat is not trustworthy. And this is one more. Please stop. We are before the Chief Justice’s court. This is an irresponsible statement…Sometimes the position of HC judges is precarious. They are abused left, right, and centre but they cannot defend themselves”.

He added the state always had the material against Setalvad but did not use it as the SC was seized of the matter. “Suppose Your Lordships would have accepted the protest petition and directed further investigation, then we would have been accused of doing something which we ought not to have”.

The SC sought to know what had been found during the interrogation. Mehta said: “She is an intelligent person. I don’t think she would have divulged anything. She did not cooperate…she refused to answer and obviously, she has a right to silence”. He added she was interrogated for seven days.

“Your Lordship has seen the nature of the conspiracy. It is not ending with the petitioner. It has started with the petitioner. There are powerful people involved,” he said.

He added that Setalvad had alleged that a woman was raped in presence of her own father-in-law but the woman had denied and added “this this maligning campaign must stop”.

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

Sibal said the statement the state was referring to was of “one Rais Khan who has been their witness since 2010…He has been going to every court to make a statement against us and every court has rejected his efforts,…the former employee of mine whom I threw out”.

“This is malicious, motivated…In public interest I did what I did. I have no personal motivation…This has led to my incarceration’, he said.