Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 653

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, A.S. BOPANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Teesta Atul Setalvad – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2022 of 2023, SLP (CRL) No. 8503 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mihir Thakore,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mihir Desai,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria,Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha,Adv. Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari,Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel,Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh,Adv. Ms. Bidya Mohanty,Adv. Ms. Sumedha Sarkar,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Detailed elaboration of evidence at stage of bail has to be avoided – This is neither in interest of prosecution nor accused.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Rejection – Allegation of having fabricated false evidence – Detailed elaboration of evidence at stage of bail has to be avoided – This is neither in interest of prosecution nor accused – Factors which are required to be taken into consideration at stage of grant of bail are - (i) prima facie case, (ii) possibility of accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and (iii) possibility of accused fleeing away from hands of justice – Gravity and seriousness of offence is yet another factor that has to be taken into consideration – Appellant is a lady and she was available for custodial interrogation for a period of seven days and thereafter she was in continuous judicial custody – After she was released on interim bail by Supreme Court, she has not been called for investigation even on a single occasion – Charge-sheet has been filed – She is entitled for bail – Appellant directed to be continued on bail. (Paras 22, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 1st July 2023, passed by Single Judge of High Court of Gujarat, thereby rejecting bail application filed by the present appellant.
Findings of Court:
Appellant would not make any attempt to influence the witnesses and shall remain away from them. If the prosecution feels that any such attempt is made by appellant, they would be entitled to move this Court directly for modification of our orders.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 1st July 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, thereby rejecting the bail application filed by the present appellant.

4. The facts in the present matter are not in dispute.

5. A judgment came to be delivered by this Court, on 24th June 2022, in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2022 (9) SCALE 385 wherein at paragraph 88, this Court observed thus:

“88. While parting, we express our appreciation for the indefatigable work done by the team of SIT officials in the challenging circumstances they had to face and yet, we find that they have come out with flying colours unscathed. At the end of the day, it appears to us that a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the State of Gujarat alongwith others was to create sensation by making revelations which were false to their own knowledge. The falsity of their claims had been fully exposed by the SIT after a thorough investigation. Intriguingly, the present proceedings have been pursued for last 16 years (from submission of complaint dated 8.6.2006 running into 67 pages and then by filing protest petition dated 15.4.2013 running into 514 pages) including with the audacity to question the integrity of every functionary involved in the process of exposing the devious stratagem adopted (to borrow the submission of learned counsel for the SIT), to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design. As a matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law.”

6. Immediately on the next day i.e. on 25th June 2022, an FIR came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The appellant came to be arrested on the same day after lodging of the FIR. On 26th June 2022, the appellant came to be produced before the learned Magistrate, who granted police remand for a period of seven days. After the completion of the police remand of seven days, the appellant was sent to judicial custody on 03rd July 2022.

7. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for bail before the learned Trial Judge i.e. Sessions Judge. The said application was rejected vide order dated 30th July 2022.

8. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14435 of 2022. The High Court vide its order dated 03rd August 2022 issued rule and made it returnable on 19th September 2022.

9. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court of not considering the interim relief in bail application, the appellant approached this Court, by way of Criminal Appeal Nos.1417-1418 of 2022. This Court, vide its order dated 2nd September 2022, after considering various factors, which we will be referring to hereinafter, directed the appellant to be released on interim bail, subject to certain conditions as could be found in the said order.

10. This Court had further observed that the applications, which were pending before the High Court, should be considered by the High Court independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the instant order.

11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge on various dates, and finally vide order dated 01st July 2023, which is impugned herein, the High Court rejected the application. Hence the present appeal.

12. Initially, this matter was listed before the Vacation Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges on 1st July 2023. However, since the two learned Judges on the Bench differed on the question, as to whether the appellant was entitled to interim protection or not, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India constituted a Bench consisting of three of us, to decide the issue.

13. Vide the order of the even date