Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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