[BREAKING] Supreme Court grants bail to Teesta Setalvad

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in the conspiracy case lodged against her for allegedly maligning the State of Gujarat and then Chief Minister Narendra Modi for their handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots [Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat].A special bench of Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta set aside a Gujarat High Court order which had refused bail to Setalvad. The Court noted that the High Court had denied bail to Setalvad on the ground that Setalvad had not challenged the FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or articles 226 or 32 of the Indian Constitution.Since she did not challenge the same, she could not claim that a prima facie case was not made out, the High Court had said.But the Supreme Court said that such a finding by the High Court was "perverse to say the least". The Court said that if the High Court's reasoning is accepted, then no bail plea can be decided pre trial without challenging the chargesheet under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution or Section 482 of CrPC. "If observation of judge is taken then no bail plea can be decided pre trial unless the chargesheet etc is challenged under 226 or 32. To say the least, the High Court finding is perverse," the Court said.Hence, the Court allowed the appeal filed by Setalvad and set aside the High Court order..The Supreme Court had on July 1 granted interim protection to Setalvad. The activist is accused of fabricating documents and tutoring witnesses to implicate higher functionaries of the Gujarat government led by then Chief Minister Narendra Modi.The apex court was today disposing of Setalvad's appeal against a Gujarat High Court order denying her regular bail. Pertinently, that ruling had stated that she should surrender immediately, since being out on bail would deepen communal polarisation in the State.Setalvad was taken into custody by the Gujarat Anti-Terror Squad a day after a June 2022 Supreme Court judgment had stated that those responsible for 'maligning the State' after the 2002 Gujarat riots should be put 'in the dock'.The Supreme Court had in September 2022 granted her interim bail in the case.The Gujarat High Court had later rejected her regular bail plea. This led to the present plea before the Supreme Court. In a special Saturday hearing held last month, the present bench had first granted interim bail to her for seven days. This was later extended till today..During today's hearing before the top court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said that the Gujarat High Court denied bail to her on the ground that she did not file a plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of the case. Such a reason for rejecting a bail plea would amount to turning the jurisprudence on its head. "It is turning the entire jurisprudence on its head. You refuse bail because you have not filed a 482 for quashing. But even with no prima facie finding of guilt bail rejected. The whole judgment proceeds on the basis that I did not seek quashing," Sibal said.Sibal also highlighted how there were convictions in most Gujarat riots cases and how the Supreme Court itself had set up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe those cases."Gujarat police refused to file FIR. FIR was not filed on actual eye witness accounts. It is at this stage the supreme court set up SIT at the instance of NHRC. One case was transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra. Barring one case there is conviction in all cases and all of this is based on eye witness accounts. There is no complaint for 20 years by anybody," he pointed out.Sibal assisted by Advocate Aparna Bhat also said that the Supreme Court's June 2022 judgment does not render any finding on fabrication of evidence. "Judgment of this court was rendered on June 24, 2022. It has no finding on fabrication of any evidence. The SIT never argued that. It is the state of Gujarat who made a submission before the court that these are tutored witnesses," he said.He also questioned the manner in which Setalvad was arrested immediately after the top court's judgment."What was this haste that on day of the judgment next day you arrest based on the submission of Solicitor General. This is unheard of," he stated. .Justice Datta noted that as per the first information report (FIR), Setalvad had also filed a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the clean-chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi in connection with the riots, which was rejected.Sibal told the Court that Setalvad was not heard after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta questioned her locus.Justice Gavai then remarked that the observation in the judgment on a person who wants to be impleaded but was not considered as the State objected, was wrong."So this observation on a person who wants to be impleaded but not considered at the objection of the State...They were not heard. This is factually wrong," he said..Additional Solicitor General SV Raju emphasized that the judgment was was based on submissions made by the SIT that Setalvad sought to level false allegations. He highlighted that money taken by Setalvad from the Congress party had also been corroborated by Narendra Bhrahmbhatt..The Court noted that the only possibility was of Setalvad influencing witnesses and that there was no possibility of tampering with evidence since it was all on record. .It further said that the observations against Setalvad that became the basis of her arrest were made in an order where she sought to be impleaded but was not allowed. The bench also questioned the need for Setalvad's custody and remarked that if the State's contention regarding fabricating 'evidence' was accepted, then definition of evidence in the Evidence Act would have to be 'thrown into the dustbin'."Please tell us for what purpose you need her custody. Do you want us to observe that section 194 is also not applicable. If your contention is to be accepted then definition of evidence under Evidence Act has to be thrown into the dustbin. An affidavit produced in court is an evidence," he said..The Court in its order noted that the offence related to the year 2002 and that Setalvad had cooperated with custodial interrogation for seven days before being sent to judicial custody. It also noted that she was never called for investigation after being granted interim bail.Further, the Court also noted that most of the evidence was documentary and that the chargesheet was filed and hence, Setalvad's custodial interrogation was not needed.It, therefore, granted bail to Setalvad. .[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing].[Read judgment]