Introduction
The case of Teesta Atul Setalvad versus the State of Gujarat has been a significant legal battle in India’s judicial history. Setalvad, a civil rights activist and journalist, has been a prominent figure in the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat riots. This article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case, focusing on the grant of bail to Setalvad.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgement, granted bail to Setalvad, thereby overturning the judgement by High Court of Gujarat which had rejected her bail application. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on several considerations, including the nature of the offences, the evidence available, and the potential for interference with the judicial process.
Supreme Court also noted that Setalvad was available for custodial interrogation for a period of seven days and thereafter she was in continuous judicial custody. The Court also observes that most of the evidence in the present case are documentary evidence, which are already in possession of the Investigating Agency and, further, that the charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the Court found that Setalvad was entitled to bail.
The Court also made it clear that the appellant would not make any attempt to influence the witnesses and shall remain away from them. If the prosecution feels that any such attempt is made by the appellant, they would be entitled to move this Court directly for modification of the Court’s orders.
This case serves as a significant precedent in the Indian legal system, particularly in relation to bail applications. It highlights the importance of considering various factors such as the nature of the offences, the evidence available, and the potential for interference with the judicial process when deciding on bail applications. The case also underscores the role of the Supreme Court in ensuring justice and fairness in the legal process.
In the following sections, we delve deeper into the background of the case, the connection to Zakia Ehsan Jafri, the registration of the FIR and Setalvad’s arrest, the grant of interim bail, the rejection of bail by the High Court, and the Supreme Court’s examination of the case. We also discuss the questions posed by the Apex court during the hearing and provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal proceedings and their implications.
Registration of FIR and Arrest
The FIR against Setalvad was registered on June 25, 2022, following a judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat. The judgement had criticised the efforts of certain individuals and entities, including Setalvad, for creating a sensation by making false revelations. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Setalvad was arrested on the same day the FIR was lodged (Page 1, Supreme Court Order).
The FIR was primarily filed against three individuals: Sanjiv Bhatt (then DIG), R.B. Sreekumar (retired IAS), and Teesta Setalvad. The allegations against Setalvad were that she influenced certain citizens to swear false affidavits, which were used as part of the investigation. These affidavits were prepared and signed statements given to the witnesses by Setalvad and advocate Mr. M.M. Tirmizi. The witnesses insisted on recording these prepared statements, which were stereotyped copies and computer-prepared statements (Page 12, High Court Order).
After the FIR was lodged, Setalvad was produced before the Magistrate, who granted police remand for a period of seven days. After the completion of the police remand, Setalvad was sent to judicial custody on July 3, 2022 (Page 2, Supreme Court Order).
Grant of Interim Bail
Setalvad was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court. The Court took into consideration that Setalvad is a woman, the offence alleged against her relates to the year 2002, and the FIR pertains to documents which were sought to be presented or relied upon till the year 2012. The Court also noted that she was available for custodial interrogation for a period of seven days and thereafter she was in continuous judicial custody (Page 10, Supreme Court Order).
Rejection of Bail by the High Court
The High Court of Gujarat rejected Setalvad’s bail application on July 1, 2023. The court’s decision was based on several factors, including the gravity of the offence, the potential for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the overall conduct of the accused.
The court acknowledged that the gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration for the grant or refusal of bail. It also noted that the charges against Setalvad were serious and based on the statements of several witnesses. The court emphasised that while the principles of grant or refusal of bail are well-settled, it must not overlook factors like the gravity of the offence, past antecedents, and the overall conduct of the applicant (Page 74, High Court Order).
The court also considered the applicability of certain sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the case. It noted that the law of bail is governed by various principles, including the presumption of innocence, the right to personal liberty, and the objective of securing the accused’s appearance and submission to the court’s jurisdiction. The court also considered whether the accused is likely to abuse the discretion granted in her favor by tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses (Page 89, High Court Order).
The court further noted that the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, and the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. It also considered the nature of the accusations, the severity of punishment in the case of conviction, and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution (Page 64, High Court Order).
Supreme Court’s examination of the Issue
The Supreme Court’s examination of the case against Teesta Setalvad revealed that the considerations available when the order was passed by the Court on September 2, 2022, were still available at this stage. The Court noted that most of the evidence in the present case is documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the Investigating Agency, and that the charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the Court found that Setalvad was entitled to bail (Page 10, Para 33, Supreme Court Order).
During the hearing, the Supreme Court posed several questions. The Court heard the arguments of both the appellant’s and respondent’s counsel at length. Court also questioned the applicability of Sections 194 and 468 IPC in the case and the allegations made against Setalvad. The Court also questioned the need for custodial interrogation and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
How can we ignore one part of order which is self-contradictory, and only consider another?
The High Court order indeed seems to have some contradictions. While it states that it cannot consider the question of whether a prima facie case exists at the stage of bail, it does discuss the chargesheet evidence in detail, which could be interpreted as an assessment of guilt (Page 49).
How can non-initiation of proceedings to quash FIR be basis for prima facie guilt?
The High Court does not explicitly address this point. However, it does note that the charges against Setalvad are serious and are based on the statements of several witnesses (Page 50).
Was Teesta Setalvad heard before the Supreme Court made observations relating to her role in earlier judgement?
The High Court judgment does not directly address this question. However, it does note that the Supreme Court, in its judgment, made observations about a “coalesced effort of disgruntled officers of the State of Gujarat, along with others” (Page 16).
What was the State doing for twenty years and how was the arrest made a single day after FIR was lodged?
The High Court judgment does not provide a direct answer to this question. However, it does note that the FIR against Setalvad was registered after the Supreme Court’s observations in the Zakia Jafri case (Page 12).
Would Section 194 IPC apply and was anyone other than Teesta Setalvad named as an accused?
The High Court judgment states that the applicability of Section 194 of the IPC has been questioned, as it would only apply to those who give or fabricate false evidence with an intention to cause damage or injury. The judgment also mentions that two other individuals, Sanjiv Bhatt and R.B. Sreekumar, were named as co-accused in the FIR registered against Setalvad (Page 13).
Conclusion: Supreme Court’s Order on Grant of Bail
The Supreme Court’s order on the grant of bail to Teesta Setalvad is a significant legal milestone that not only addresses the specifics of Setalvad’s case but also provides broader insights into the considerations that guide the court’s decisions on bail applications.
In the case of Setalvad, the Supreme Court noted that the considerations which were available when the order was passed by the Court on September 2, 2022, were still available even at this stage. These considerations included the fact that Setalvad is a woman, the offence alleged against her relates to the year 2002, and the FIR pertains to documents which were sought to be presented or relied upon till the year 2012. The Court also noted that Setalvad was available for custodial interrogation for a period of seven days and thereafter she was in continuous judicial custody.
The Supreme Court also took into account that most of the evidence in the present case are documentary evidence, which are already in possession of the Investigating Agency and, further, that the charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the Court found that Setalvad was entitled to bail.
The Court also addressed the prosecution’s concern that Setalvad may influence the witnesses, stating that this concern can be taken care of by directing her not to make any attempt to influence the witnesses.
To sum up, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s order and allowed Setalvad’s appeal. The Court directed that Setalvad be continued on bail, which was granted to her in terms of the order dated September 2, 2022. The Court also made it clear that Setalvad would not make any attempt to influence the witnesses and shall remain away from them.
The Supreme Court’s order in the case of Teesta Setalvad serves as a significant precedent in the Indian legal system, particularly in relation to bail applications. It underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, the nature of the evidence, and the potential for interference with the judicial process.
Legal Principles and Doctrines
The Supreme Court order in the case of Teesta Setalvad vs. State of Gujarat discusses several legal principles and doctrines. Here are some of them:
1. Principle of Bail
The Supreme Court reaffirms the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It emphasises that a detailed elaboration of evidence at the stage of bail has to be avoided as it is neither in the interest of the prosecution nor the accused (Page 8, Supreme Court Order).
2. Prima Facie Case
The Court discusses the factors that are required to be taken into consideration at the stage of grant of bail. These include the existence of a prima facie case, the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. The gravity and seriousness of the offence are also factors to be considered (Page 9, Supreme Court Order).
3. Judicial Propriety
The Court mentions the concept of judicial propriety, stating that it would not delve into issues that were not directly related to the bail application. This includes the applicability of observations made in a previous judgment (Page 10, Supreme Court Order).
4. Natural Justice
The Court also touches upon the principle of natural justice. It notes that the considerations available when the interim bail order was passed were still available at the current stage. The Court also emphasizes that most of the evidence in the case is documentary, which is already in the possession of the Investigating Agency, and that the charge-sheet has been filed (Page 11, Supreme Court Order).
5. Presumption of Innocence
The Court reiterates the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It criticizes the High Court’s approach of presuming guilt because the accused did not initiate proceedings to quash the FIR (Page 9, Supreme Court Order).
6. Right to Fair Trial
The Court discusses the right to a fair trial, noting that the High Court’s order directing the appellant to surrender immediately, despite her being on interim bail, was not in line with this principle (Page 11, Supreme Court Order).
