Gujarat riots case: SC grants interim bail to activist Teesta Setalvad
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in a case related to 2002 Gujarat riots. The apex court said it considered the matter only from the standpoint of interim bail while the Gujarat High Court would decide her bail plea independently and uninfluenced by any observations made by the supreme court.
Granting the bail, the apex court also said Setalvad would render complete cooperation in the probe, and asked her to surrender her passport.
Setalvad was arrested on June 25 for allegedly fabricating evidence to frame “innocent people” in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases. She was held on charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery and other Sections of the IPC on the basis of an FIR lodged in the DCB by Inspector Darshansinh Barad, which quotes extensively from the Court order.
The Supreme Court had on Thursday questioned the Gujarat High Court’s decision to list activist Teesta Setalvad’s bail plea for hearing on September 19 — almost six weeks after it issued notice, and wondered if this was the “standard practice in Gujarat” and asked the state government “what kind of material have you gathered in the last two months” against her.
Noting that Setalvad was arrested on June 25 and had already spent more than two months in custody, Chief Justice of India U U Lalit said “we want to know what kind of material have you gathered in the last two months. Number 1, the lady has completed more than 2 months of custody. Number 2, you must have had the benefit of custodial interrogation at some stage. So therefore, is there anything which has actually been elicited out of such custodial interrogation because today as the things stand, the FIR has nothing but whatever has happened in Supreme Court”.
The CJI added, “there is no offence… like say POTA, or UAPA… which comes with the rider or which comes with the statutory mandate that bail should not be granted. There is no such thing. These are normal IPC offences… then under Section 437 (when bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence) mandate, a lady is definitely entitled to a favoured treatment”.
