Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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 

 

Latest Legal News