SC Grants Regular Bail To Teesta Setalvad In 2002 Post-Godhra Riots Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted regular bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in a case of alleged fabrication of evidence in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta quashed the Gujarat High Court's order and deemed the petitioner's custodial interrogation unnecessary as the chargesheet in the case had already been filed. Consequently, the Court nullified the Gujarat High Court's order and granted her bail, with the condition that she must refrain from attempting to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

Setalvad and two others - former Director General of Police (DGP) RB Sreekumar and ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt - were arrested by the city crime branch in June last year on charges of forgery and fabricating false evidence with the intent to procure conviction for capital offence in connection with the 2002 riots cases.

The Gujarat High Court had on July 1 rejected Setalvad's bail plea and directed her to surrender immediately while observing that she made attempts to unsettle the then democratically-elected government and malign the image of then chief minister and current Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

However, the Supreme Court passed an interim order protecting her from arrest in the case.

The apex court noted that the High Court had refused bail to Setalvad as she 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.

As she had not contested these aspects, the High Court concluded that she could not argue that a prima facie case was lacking.

However, the Supreme Court deemed this finding by the High Court to be "perverse, to say the least."

"If the observation of the learned judge are to be accepted, no application for bail can be accepted unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings...To say the least, the findings are totally perverse," Live Law quoted the court as stating.