Tag: interim bail

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad, Slams Gujarat HC’s Refusal

Earlier this month, the activist had been asked to “surrender immediately” by the Gujarat high court, which also rejected her bail plea.

New Delhi: Making scathing observations on the Gujarat high court’s order, the Supreme Court today, July 19, granted regular bail to Teesta Setalvad, in the Gujarat police’s case alleging that the activist had fabricated evidence in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Earlier this month, Setalvad had been asked to “surrender immediately” by the Gujarat high court, which also rejected her bail plea. The Supreme Court’s interim bail to her had protected her from arrest until then.

The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta said today that this order was “perverse”.

“We are at pains to say that the order passed by the learned judge makes an interesting reading,” the bench said, according to LiveLaw.

The bench noted that on the “one hand, the learned judge has spent pages to observe as to how it is not necessary rather nor permissible at the stage of bail to consider whether a prima facie case is made out or not,” and then criticised the fact that the Gujarat high court had observed that since Setalvad had not challenged the FIR against her, she could not be permitted to say whether the case against her was made out or not.

“If the observation of the learned judge are to be accepted, no application for bail can be accepted unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings,” the bench said.

The bench highlighted that the three considerations during the granting of bail are what the case looks like, prima facie case, what possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing the witness exists and the chance of the accused fleeing from justice, along with the gravity of her offence.

“To say the least, the findings are totally perverse. On the other hand, the learned judge goes on to discuss the statements of some witnesses and finds that prima facie case is made out. The findings are totally contradictory, to say the least,” the bench said.

Shortly after the Gujarat high court’s order earlier this month, in a late night sitting on July 1, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief to Setalvad, with Justice B.R. Gavai asking, “Will the skies fall if interim protection is granted for some days?”

Later, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court extended her interim bail until July 19, today.

Last year, Setalvad was arrested from her Mumbai home by the Gujarat Anti-Terror Squad soon after the Supreme Court’s controversial judgment in the Zakia Jafri case. Jafri and Setalvad’s appeal had centred around the closure report of the special investigation team which probed the murder of Jafri’s husband, Ehsan, in the 2002 riots.

The SC not only disposed the appeal, but claimed that Setalvad was among “those who had kept the pot boiling” with an “ulterior motive” for the past 16 years. It added that she should be in the dock and be “proceeded with in accordance with the law”.

Setalvad spent around 70 days in jail. Former SC judge Justice Madan B. Lokur had written in an analysis for The Wire that the “implications [of the SC’s observations] were horrendous.”

Advocate Indira Jaising noted on Twitter in the aftermath of the bail order that “she should never have been arrested in the first place.”

Supreme Court Extends Teesta Setalvad’s Interim Bail Until July 19

The same three-judge bench which granted interim bail to Setalvad on July 1 has extended her bail to July 19 and sought a response from the Gujarat high court by then.

New Delhi: Hearing Teesta Setalvad’s appeal against the Gujarat high court’s order for her to “surrender immediately”, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has extended the activist’s interim bail until July 19.

The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta listed Setalvad’s appeal for final disposal on July 19 and sought the Gujarat high court’s response by then, Bar and Bench reported.

“Whatever documents parties want to place on record shall be filed prior to July 15 after exchanging with each other. Interim order to continue until further orders,” the bench said on Wednesday, July 5 according to news agency PTI.

Setalvad was granted interim bail by the apex court on July 1 against the Gujarat HC’s order a day earlier asking her to surrender immediately in a case which alleges that she was part of a conspiracy to send implicate innocent persons in the 2002 Gujarat violence cases.

A single-judge bench of the high court, headed by Justice Nirzar Desai, had rejected Setalvad’s plea for regular bail and turned down a request made by her lawyer requesting a 30-day stay on the judgment so she could move the Supreme Court.

The high court said that Setalvad had tried to “implicate innocent persons” and “unsettle the government … with an intention to tarnish the image of the then-Hon’ble Chief Minister [Narendra Modi] and thereby to send him to jail and compel him to resign”, PTI reported.

“Prima facie, this court is of the view that, today, if the applicant like this is enlarged on bail, that will deepen and widen the communal polarisation,” the court reasoned.

Also Read: Teesta Setalvad Honoured With an Empty Chair by International Free Speech Activists

The Supreme Court bench disagreed with the high court’s sense of urgency around Setalvad’s surrender.

“What is the urgency in taking her into custody? Will the skies fall if interim protection is granted for some days? We are taken by surprise by what the high court has done … Even common criminals are granted interim relief,” Justice Gavai said according to LiveLaw.

The activist, who was involved in helping survivors of the violence file legal cases, was arrested last year from her Mumbai home by Gujarat’s Anti-Terror Squad. The development came a day after the Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of slain Congress leader and former MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging the SIT’s ‘clean chit’ to Modi and other top political and administrative leaders regarding alleged involvement in the violence.

The Supreme Court not only disposed of the appeal but claimed that Setalvad was among “those who had kept the pot boiling” with an “ulterior motive” for the past 16 years. It added that she should be in the dock and be “proceeded with in accordance with the law”.

She spent around 70 days in jail but was later granted bail by the top court.

Setalvad’s Interim Bail by SC Welcome, Promises a More Vigilant Court: Top English Papers

The editorials terming the decision as a necessary correction to the trend of denying bail by lower courts.

New Delhi: India’s top English newspapers welcomed the interim bail granted to activist Teesta Setalvad by the Supreme Court, terming it a necessary correction to the trend of denying bail by lower courts and that the move holds the promise of a more vigilant court.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Setalvad, who was arrested by the Gujarat Police for an alleged conspiracy to send innocent persons to jail by misleading the investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots case.

In an editorial, the Times of India pointed out that India’s jurisprudence was based on the constitution’s Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

It noted that the Supreme Court’s approach is guided by the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. But, this principle was “not followed often enough by other levels of the judiciary”.

The TOI edit observed that undertrials account for 77% of 5.5 lakh prisoners in India, as per data till December 2021. Further, 2019 government data showed that almost half of the jailed undertrials had been locked up for more than two years. “This is unconscionable,” it said.

In a more hard-hitting editorial, the Indian Express wrote that the Supreme Court “has displayed a worrying lack of alacrity in matters of individual rights and liberties being encroached upon by the state, and in far too many instances, it has given the state the benefit of the doubt”.

The interim bail granted to Setalvad was, therefore, “welcome and reassuring”, the newspaper said. “Now, the SC’s stance — on the side of the individual, calling to account the powerful state — holds out a larger promise of a vigilant court, regardless of the final outcome of the Setalvad case, and whatever course it takes”.

The Express editorial also listed out the pointed questions raised by the apex court, ranging from the lack of a chargesheet and the delay in the bail hearing in the high court.

The Hindu observed in its editorial that the relief given to Setalvad “should be welcomed by those who value personal liberty as well as activism in support of the vulnerable”.

The Chennai-based newspaper wrote the “real significance” of the judgement was that it was a “strong pushback against a government that seems intent on keeping her behind bars for daring to assist victims of heinous communal violence in their efforts to seek justice”.

It pointed out that the in the earlier order that endorsed the finding of the SIT’s clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Supreme Court had “virtually canvassed for the arrest and prosecution of Ms. Setalvad and former police officers, R.B. Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt”.

Setalvad was arrested a day after the Supreme Court dismissed Zakia Jafri’s plea, with the observations that there was a conspiracy to “keep the pot boiling” in the Gujarat riots case.

There were no editorials from other English papers like Hindustan Times, The Telegraph or the New Indian Express.

SC Grants Interim Bail to Nearly 100 Prisoners Lodged in UP Jails for More Than 20 Years

The top court also issued notice on two writ petitions that have sought the release of similarly placed prisoners in Agra and Varanasi jails.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim bail to a batch of 97 convicts who have been lodged in different jails in Uttar Pradesh for more than 20 years and who had served their sentence.

According to LiveLaw, passing the order, a bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari also issued notice on two writ petitions that have sought the release of prisoners in Agra and Varanasi jails.

The petitioners submitted that the convicts, most of whom were awarded life imprisonment, had served out their sentences as part of the state government’s policy which stipulates 16 years of actual imprisonment and four years with remission.

The petition was filed through advocate Rishi Malhotra, according to LiveLaw. It cites a previous Supreme Court order dated May 4, 2021 in which the top court granted relief to a similarly placed batch of convicts. This order casts an obligation on the government to act as a ‘welfare state’ and it should consider the premature release by way of periodic assessments, the plea says.

The petitioners also say that the state government ignored the top court’s order to release some convicts. When they moved the top court by filing contempt petition, the government “immediately complied with the directions and released at least 32 convicts” on July 16 to avoid contempt proceedings. These convicts had served more than 20 years of total sentence, including an actual sentence of 16 years and above, the petitioners say.

According to LiveLaw, the petition also challenges the UP government’s decision to amend the policy on considering release of prisoners who have served a sentence of more than 20 years. Under the new policy, issued on July 28, “an attempt has been made to defeat the rights of the convicts” by restricting the grounds on which convicts would be given the benefit of the state policy. The new policy only allows people above the age of 60 to seek relief.

The plea makes an appeal that the earlier policy should apply to the petitioners as well, since it is settled law that a policy that was in existence at the time of conviction would be applicable at the time of consideration for premature release of a convict.

‘Medical Negligence’: NHRC Seeks Action Taken Report from Taloja Jail on Stan Swamy

The NHRC’s move came after a Jesuit lawyer sought its intervention, saying that an Ayurveda doctor had treated the severely ailing activist at a time when he had showed several symptoms of COVID-19. 

New Delhi: The National Human Rights Commission has asked for an ‘action taken’ report from the Taloja jail superintendent in connection with allegations that 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy was denied medical facilities.

The Telegraph newspaper has reported that NHRC assistant registrar of law, Subhra Tyagi, sent the email to jail authorities on June 26.

The email was sent after Father Santhanam A., a Jesuit lawyer from Tamil Nadu, moved NHRC seeking its attention in the case. In his May plea, he had said that an Ayurveda doctor was then treating the severely ailing activist, in spite of the fact that he had showed several symptoms of COVID-19.

Stan Swamy, incarcerated since October 2020 over what the NIA claims are his connections to the Elgar Parishad case, also suffers from Parkinson’s and has difficulty in even sipping water from a glass.

The lawyer had said most jail staff and several prisoners, many of whom were undertrial, had tested positive for COVID-19. He also alleged that the activist was vaccinated in spite of having a fever, against medical protocol.

Shortly afterwards, Stan Swamy tested positive for COVID-19. He was then shifted to the Holy Family Hospital following an order by the Bombay high court and was recently shifted to the intensive care unit because his medical condition grew serious. The high court, in the meantime, also extended his stay at the hospital.

When Swamy was produced before the Bombay high court from the prison via video-conferencing, he told the court that his mental and physical health had declined steadily in the jail.

He had refused to get admitted to the JJ Hospital, saying he had been there twice earlier but had found no relief and would “rather die in prison than go to JJ Hospital” and would prefer to “be with his own.”

Writing on the sub-par medical facilities at Taloja Jail – where the 16 activists and lawyers accused by the NIA in the Elgar Parishad case are being held – The Wire‘s Sukanya Shantha had noted that the jail has a capacity to house 2,124 people but currently has more than 2,700, making COVID-19 protocols like social distancing impossible to follow.

Her report further highlighted basic inadequacies when it came to medical care:

“And to make things worse, Taloja prison, like most other prisons in the state, lacks basic medical facilities. Three Ayurvedic doctors have been handling healthcare in the prison for the longest time. Each time someone among those arrested in the Elgar Parishad case has fallen ill, they have had to move Bombay high court to ensure adequate treatment is made available to them.”

January 26 Violence: Court Grants Lakha Sidhana Interim Protection From Arrest

Sidhana’s counsel asserted that he had no role to play in the Republic Day violence at the Red Fort.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Saturday granted interim protection from arrest to gangster-turned-activist Lakha Sidhana in connection with his alleged involvement in the violence which ensued at the Red Fort on Republic Day.

On January 26, protesting farmers had clashed with police during their tractor rally and stormed into the Red Fort, hoisting religious flags on its domes and injuring scores of policemen.

Fearing arrest, Sidhana moved Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court seeking anticipatory bail in the case, with his counsel asserting that he has no role to play in the incident.

Additional sessions judge Neelofer Abida Perveen posted the matter for July 3 and directed the police to not arrest him until then. This came after the police sought more time to make submissions on his pre-arrest bail plea.

Sidhana had earlier denied involvement in the Republic Day violence.

Several cases had been registered against him in Punjab and he was jailed many times. He had also unsuccessfully contested the 2012 state assembly polls.

(PTI)

Bombay HC Extends Stan Swamy’s Stay in Private Hospital Until June 18

Swamy, 84, was on May 28 shifted from the Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai to the Holy Family Hospital after he filed a petition, seeking interim bail on medical grounds.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Thursday said Jesuit priest and activist Stan Swamy, arrested in the Elgar Parishad case, shall remain admitted in a Mumbai-based private hospital till June 18 as he is suffering from COVID-19.

Swamy, 84, was on May 28 shifted from the Taloja prison in neighbouring Navi Mumbai to the Holy Family Hospital here after he filed a petition, seeking interim bail on medical grounds.

After being shifted to the private hospital, he tested positive for the coronavirus infection.

He was lodged at the Taloja prison since his arrest in October 2020.

On Thursday, his counsel Mihir Desai told a division bench of Justices S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamadar that Swamy had tested positive for COVID-19 and hence, his stay at the private hospital should be extended.

The bench said Swamy shall remain admitted at the private hospital till June 18, and posted the petition for hearing on June 17.

The court also directed the hospital to submit in a sealed envelope medical reports of Swamy by the next date of hearing.

Last month, when Swamy was produced before the HC from the prison via video-conferencing, he told the court that his mental and physical health had declined steadily in the jail.

The Elgar Parishad case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at a conclave held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the Maharashtra city’s outskirts.

The Pune Police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the probe into the case.

Andhra Pradesh HC: Release All Convicts, Under Trial Prisoners on Interim Bail for 90 Days

However, those who are either second offenders or convicted or facing trial under Section 376 IPC (rape) and the POCSO Act shall be exempted.

New Delhi: The Andhra Pradesh high court has directed that all convicts and undertrial prisoners – who were readmitted in prisons last year after being released on bail – be released on interim bail of 90 days, LiveLaw reported.

This decision was taken in view of the recommendations made by the Supreme Court-mandated high powered committee in May. Several rights organisations across the country have been repeatedly asking the authorities to decongest prisons during the deadly second wave of COVID-19.

The Andhra Pradesh high court also directed the release of other convicts and under trial prisoners who are in custody in connection with offences punishable for seven years or less, as per the high powered committee’s recommendations. However, those who are either second offenders or convicted or facing trial under Section 376 IPC (commits rape) and POCSO Act shall be exempted.

The division bench comprising of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Lalitha Kanneganti also directed the authorities to maintain COVID-19 protocols inside juvenile remand homes and upload prison occupancy in all jails in the state.

Also read: COVID-19 in Prisons: SC Intervention Must Ensure the Centre Exercises Its Responsibility

The court also asked principal district judges to ensure that the magistrates of the concerned areas shall be available for accepting bail bonds for release of prisoners.

An undertaking also needs to be signed by the one who’s being released stating that the person will remain in home quarantine for 14 days under the surveillance of doctor of the police, failing which the person’s interim bail may be cancelled.

As per the high-powered committee’s resolutions, the court directed the principal secretary, home and the director general of prisons to provide adequate transport facilities to the released convicts, keeping in mind the COVID-19 guidelines and restrictions. In case if the convicts are not willing to be released for the fear of the virus or societal issues, then the authorities must provide them with adequate medical facilities.

The matter will be heard after six weeks.

Arnab Goswami Case: Dushyant Dave Writes To SC on ‘Selective Listing of Matters’

Pointing to the speed with which the Goswami petition is being heard, the senior advocate writes that “it gives an impression that clients represented by certain lawyers are getting special treatment”.

New Delhi: With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Republic TV editor in-chief Arnab Goswami’s challenge against the Bombay high court’s rejection of his interim bail plea on November 11, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Dushyant Dave has written a letter to the top court expressing concern over the “selective listing of matters”.

A bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee will hear the petition at 10.30 am on Wednesday.

According to the records available with the Supreme Court registry, Goswami’s petition has nine ‘defects’, including the fact that the vakalatnama is unsigned. The court does not normally list a petition before a bench until the defects are “cured”.

List of defects in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs the State of Maharashtra petition listed before vacation bench of the Supreme Court. Source: Supreme Court registry

Citing how thousands of citizens have been stuck in jail for long periods of time as their matters are not getting listed before the court, Dave, a senior advocate, addresses the secretary general and says that he wishes to lodge a “strong protest” with regard to the listing of Goswami’s case in such an instantaneous manner.

“The serious issue here is selective listing of matters that the registry under your leadership is indulging in for last eight months during the COVID-19 pandemic… It is, to say the least, deeply disturbing as to how and why every time Mr Goswami approaches the Supreme Court, his matter gets listed instantly,” the letter reads.

Also read: Arnab Goswami Arrest: HC Refuses Interim Relief; Bail Plea Filed in Sessions Court

Dave writes that he does not mean to “interfere with his rights to move the SC” in any way, and is only penning this letter out of concern based on “requests from various advocates on record to the effect that the matters filed by them are not getting listed for weeks and months” even though they involve urgent and serious matters – including petitions for bail. The senior advocate cites the example of how former finance minister P. Chidambaram spent many months in jail as his petition for bail languished before the court.

Pointing out how the matter for the Goswami case “was filed yesterday, got an instant diary number and is listed for tomorrow”, Dave writes that “it gives an impression that clients represented by certain lawyers are getting special treatment, which does not speak well if the great institution that the Supreme Court is”. Dave asks that all urgent listings made before November 10 be heard first.

Goswami, who was arrested on November 4 by Raigad Police in connection with the suicide of an interior designer, was sent to judicial custody for 14 days by the chief judicial magistrate, and is currently lodged at Taloja Central Jail in Navi Mumbai.

“The likes of Goswami get special treatment while ordinary Indians are made to suffer, including imprisonment, which are many times illegal and unauthorised,” he writes, asking whether the listing was made based on a special direction from either the Chief Justice of India as it is “quite well known that such extraordinarily urgent listings of matters cannot and does not take place without specific orders from the CJI”.

Dave also mentions how many advocates on record have made complaints about how matters filed by certain advocates get an “instant listing”, while other are made to “wait in queue for long time, sometimes against the same judgement being appealed against”.

Also read: I’m a Journalist, That’s Why I Don’t Stand With Arnab Goswami

“Why is this selective listing taking place when system is supposedly computerised and is to work automatically? Why is there no foolproof system to be just and fair to all citizens and all advocates on record?” he asks, calling the listing a “gross abuse of administrative power”.

He calls the secretary general’s attention to the challenges faced by lawyers during the COVID-19 pandemic with their livelihood being seriously impacted during the lockdown.

Dave ends his letter by suggesting that the court move to a better video platform to ease the technical issues that have plagued the court over the past few months, as the functioning of the SC so far has been “quite truncated and limited” with fewer benches in session.

He requests the secretary general to “install a foolproof system to ensure urgent listing on well-known principles” as the “direct and debilitating effect is on the delivery of justice and rights of citizens – at least the common man”.

Abetment to Suicide Case: Arnab Goswami Moves Supreme Court for Bail

The Bombay high court on Monday refused to grant interim bail to Goswami.

New Delhi: Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking interim bail in the 2018 case of alleged abetment to suicide of an interior designer.

The Bombay high court on Monday refused to grant interim bail to Goswami and two others in the case and had asked them to move to the local court for the relief.

Goswami and the two others were arrested by Alibaug police in Maharashtra’s Raigad district on November 4, 2020, in connection with the suicide of architect-interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother in 2018 over alleged non-payment of dues by companies of the accused.

Besides the state government, the journalist has made station house officers of the Alibaug police station and Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh as parties to his appeal in the top court.

The hearing on Goswami’s bail plea is scheduled to be heard in the trial court also during the day.