No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

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