Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad: “Possession of Documentary Evidence and Completed Investigation” Key Factors, says the Bench*

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Atul Setalvad in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2022/2023 (@ SLP (CRL) NO.8503/2023), challenging the High Court of Gujarat’s judgment that rejected her bail application. The Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, passed the verdict on July 19, 2023.

The Court emphasized that the possession of documentary evidence by the Investigating Agency and the completion of essential ingredients of the investigation were key factors in granting interim bail. The Bench noted that the alleged offences dated back to the year 2002, and the documentary evidence relied upon pertained to documents presented or used until the year 2012.

Court stated that “the essential ingredients of the investigation, including the custodial interrogation, had been completed,” making the relief of interim bail justifiable. The Court also took into consideration that the appellant was a lady and had been in custody since June 2022.

The Bench further clarified that the concern of the prosecution regarding the possibility of witness tampering could be addressed by directing the appellant not to make any attempt to influence witnesses. It emphasized that the observations made in the impugned order and their order would not influence the trial court at the stage of the trial.

The ruling reflects the Court’s cautious approach in not engaging in detailed elaboration of evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Bench refrained from delving into the issues raised in previous judgments and focused on the specific factors relevant to granting interim bail.

The Court’s decision comes after thorough consideration of the case, respecting the principles of judicial propriety and weighing the gravity of the offences. This landmark ruling has set a precedent for considering documentary evidence and completed investigation as crucial factors in determining interim bail applications in criminal cases.

The appellant’s advocate, Shri Kapil Sibal, expressed satisfaction with the judgment, stating, “The Court’s approach in assessing the possession of documentary evidence and the completion of investigation at the pre-trial stage is commendable. We are pleased with the decision to grant interim bail to our client.

On the other hand, Shri S.V. Raju, representing the State of Gujarat, argued that the appellant’s alleged attempt to implicate innocent citizens in serious offences warranted denial of bail. He maintained that the gravity of the offence and the potential to destabilize a democratically elected government should be significant considerations in bail applications.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2023

TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD vs STATE OF GUJARAT 

 

Similar News