Courts should take an approach of clear thinking and common sense while considering granting bail and should avoid any tendency to keep someone in jail just because the police vehemently opposes bail. in giving Regular bail to activist Teesta SetalvadThe Supreme Court of India has effectively rejected the Gujarat Police’s stand that the alleged seriousness of the offense he is accused of is sufficient to deny him bail. Since the case primarily relies on documentary evidence, all of which are part of the charge sheet filed in the case, the court did not see any need to actually keep him in judicial custody. In addition, Ms. Setalvad was interrogated in custody during a seven-day police remand shortly after His arrest in June 2022, and he was not called for any further questioning since he was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in September. In fact, a three-judge bench headed by Justice BR Gavai found no real need to imprison anyone during the trial, as the police persuasively argued that it had allegedly fabricated evidence and instigated false charges against political leaders to implicate the victims of the 2002 massacre in Gujarat in a communal carnage.
The court asked some relevant questions to the Gujarat Police. The case of forgery and fabricating evidence was registered after the Supreme Court, while dismissing a riot victim’s plea, said that those who tried to defame the state government and its functionaries should be brought to book. Ms. Setalvad was arrested within a day, and the court had questions as to what investigation it had conducted within such a short period of time to justify her arrest. Notably, the apex court bench was of the view that The High Court refused to grant him bail contradicted himself, as he initially observed that it could not go into existence of a prima facie case, but began to consider the statements of the witnesses against him. The judgment is another reminder that an order of bail should ideally be made after considering whether the accused is likely to flee justice or would be available for trial, and if, once free, he would be in a position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Although the seriousness of the offense is a factor, it need not be the sole consideration. The hearing of this case is going to start soon in a sessions court in Ahmedabad. It is hoped that this will settle the question of whether action should have been taken against the activists who aided the victims on the allegation of trying to implicate innocent political leaders.