New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to social activist Teesta Setalvad, who is facing charges of tampering with evidence in the 2002 post-Godhra riots case – a move that echoes the Gujarat High Court’s July 1 verdict. who ordered them to surrender immediately.
A three-judge bench led by Justice BR Gavai set aside the Gujarat HC judgement, which it called “perverse” and “contradictory”. This also raised questions on the state Claiming that the activist was facing “serious and serious allegations”, adding that the use of Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 194 in the First Information Report (FIR) against her was “suspicious”.
Section 194 deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to secure punishment for an offense punishable with death.
Setalvad has been accused of falsifying evidence and inciting witnesses to claim that senior Gujarat officials, including the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, were behind the 2002 communal violence.
“The HC order is self-contradictory and we cannot ignore it. If the observations of the learned Judge are to be accepted, no application for bail can be entertained unless the accused makes an application for quashing of the proceedings (case). To say the least, the findings are perverse,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who opposed the bail.
The Supreme Court order came on the activist’s appeal against the Gujarat HC’s July 1 order, which was stayed by the Supreme Court in a late evening hearing the same day, after a dramatic turn of events.
During the hearing, Justice Gavai’s bench also questioned, albeit verbally, the 2022 Supreme Court judgment that formed the basis of the Gujarat Police’s evidence tampering case against Setalvad.
The verdict, pronounced last June, dismissed a petition filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in the 2002 post-Godhra riots. In her petition, Zakia challenged the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report, which rejected her and Setalvad’s claim of Modi’s alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy behind the 2002 riots.
A bench led by Justice Gavai noted that the observations in the June 2022 judgment were made without giving Setalvad a reply to the allegations, while the activist’s request to intervene was rejected.
“The rule of law also includes the principles of natural justice,” the bench said, adding that Setalvad’s custody was no longer required as the chargesheet in the case has already been filed.
However, the court asked Setalvad not to influence any witness and also gave liberty to the prosecution to directly approach the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail in case of violation of its conditions.
Contradiction in HC judgement, seriousness of crime
On 25 June 2022 – a day after the Supreme Court bench’s decision on Jafri’s appeal – the Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch registered an FIR against Setalvad, former Gujarat police chief RB Sreekumar and former IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt.
In that judgement, a three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar (now retired) said those who “kept the pot boiling…for some ulterior motive” should be “brought to the dock”.
Soon after, Setalvad was taken into custody, where she remained until she was released by the Supreme Court. Interim bail last September.
On 1 July, while rejecting Setalvad’s plea for regular bail, the Gujarat HC accused the activist of trying to “implicate the then Chief Minister (and now Prime Minister Narendra Modi) and high officials of the state government and top BJP leaders”. Was accused. According to media reports.
Setalvad appealed to the Supreme Court against the verdict the same day. After a division bench of the top court failed to give a unanimous order, it was referred to the same three-judge bench that had delivered the judgment on Wednesday. That bench held a hearing the same night and granted him interim protection from arrest.
In Wednesday’s hearing, a three-judge bench noted “self-contradictions” in the Gujarat HC judgement. According to the judges, while on the one hand the High Court had held that at the stage of bail it is not necessary to consider whether there is a prima facie case or not, on the other hand it while discussing the statements of some witnesses, observed that a prima facie case has been established.
Further, the bench quoted the HC as saying that Setalvad could not argue that there was no case against her as she had challenged neither the FIR nor the charge sheet.
“The limited understanding of law that we have is that the things that need to be considered for granting bail are (whether) a prima facie case is made out); Chances of the accused tampering with the evidence to influence the witness and flee from justice. Other considerations are the gravity and seriousness of the offence,” the bench said, adding that every student of law “knows what are the relevant considerations for bail”.
In his arguments, ASG Raju told the court that the police did not act before the 2022 SC verdict as the matter was sub judice. Asked what investigation was done by the police in the 24 hours between the verdict and the registration of the FIR, he said the case was registered on the findings of the SIT.
On Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code, the court wanted to know whether any of the witnesses who had signed the alleged false affidavit had been arrested. It said, “Initially we felt that a case under section 194 was made out. But now section 194 is also doubtful.”
It also rejected the ASG’s contention that Setalvad was involved in a serious offense and said the punishment for this was “only three years”.
When ASG Raju claimed that Setalvad had a criminal history, the bench quipped, “Is he wanted in a murder case.”
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)