NEW DELHI: In a relief to social activist Teesta Setalvad, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed her arrest till February 19.
The apex court also asked the Gujarat government lawyer to produce some relevant documents pertaining to this case on February 19.
The court allowed Setalvad to file additional documents in support of her defence that the charges of misusing funds meant for riot victims was concocted.
Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand had moved the Supreme Court on Thursday and gained a day’s reprieve from arrest by Gujarat police in a case of alleged misappropriation of funds meant for rehabilitation of 2002 post-Godhra riot victims.
The relief came hours after the Gujarat high court rejected the couple’s anticipatory bail plea, prompting them to rush to the SC.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal made a dramatic mention of the couple’s anticipatory bail plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu and sought an urgent hearing. The bench immediately restrained the state police from arresting them till Friday, when their appeal against the HC decision would be heard.
Sibal said it was an extraordinary situation and the court needed to intervene urgently as the “mighty” state police was hell bent to arrest Teesta. The bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri and Arun Mishra, agreed to hear the case on Friday and restrained police from arresting her till then.
After the HC rejected the anticipatory bail plea, Gujarat police sprang into action to arrest the couple and reached their residence in Mumbai. But they were not at home.
Setalvad and her husband submitted that the FIR was registered solely for the purpose of harassing them as there was no merit in the charges. “The FIR is based on a false and mala fide complaint and solely for the purpose of harassing and torturing them,” the petition said.
Setalvad and her NGO “Citizens for Justice and Peace” were instrumental in bringing the Gujarat riot cases to the Supreme Court. In the Best Bakery case, the apex court had indicted the then Modi government of Gujarat as ‘Modern day Neros who looked the other way when the best Bakery was burning”.
She had also thrown her support to Jakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed by a rioting mob in 2002, to put the Gujarat government and Modi on the back-foot till the SC-appointed special investigation team gave the then CM a clean chit.
While rejecting her anticipatory bail plea, the HC had strongly criticized Setalvad for allegedly spending funds collected to help 2002 Gujarat riot victims for her personal indulgence. The HC had also questioned the functioning of Setalvad and her NGOs.
The HC had, however, granted anticipatory bail to three riot victims, former residents of Gulbarg Society and co-accused in the embezzlement case – former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri’s son Tanvir, society’s chairman Salim Sandhi and secretary Firoz Gulzar. They were granted bail on the conditions that they would furnish a bond of Rs 10,000 and cooperate with investigation.
The HC had said “The facts of this case are quite shocking and disturbing. How can one seek materialistic pleasure and happiness at the expense of poor and needy persons? How can one even use five paise which is meant for the poor and the needy?”
“The facts of this case reflect the sorry state of affairs of NGOs. The donations are made with lot of trust and hope that ultimately the money would reach the poor and needy. However, here is a case where in the name of the poor, needy and unfortunate riot-affected victims, lakhs of rupees was received and embezzled,” the HC said.
The court said even if the arguments by Setalvad and her husband that Gujarat police had been targeting them since beginning were to be believed, this was a fit case of custodial interrogation in public interest.
In January 2014, on a complaint filed by former residents of Gulbarg Society, police had booked Feroze Khan Pathan, Setalvad and others for allegedly usurping Rs 1.51 crore collected for a riot museum.
Residents had alleged they were restrained from selling their property on the promise that NGOs would buy them. Citing lack of funds, the promise was not fulfilled.
TOI | Feb 13, 2015
Contact Lawyers In India : https://lawintellectindia.com/contact-us/