No anticipatory bail to Teesta and her husband Javed

New Delhi, 24 February 2014

Booked under sections 438 of CrPC, 72(A) of Information Technology Act, and 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC, controversial NGO operator Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed had filed anticipatory bail in Supreme court to prevent her arrest. However the Supreme Court today refused to grant anticipatory bail to both. However interim protection from arrest was extended till March end in a case lodged against them in Ahmedabad for alleged embezzlement of funds.

The Bombay High Court had last month refused to grant anticipatory bail to Teesta and her husband Javed Anand in cheating and breach of trust case filed against them by victims of year 2002 Gujarat riots. The couple was however granted transit anticipatory bail for four weeks. They were directed to appear before a Gujarat court within this period. The couple had approached the apex court against the January 31 order .

A First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the DCP police station in Ahmedabad this month, at the behest of a former resident of Gulbarg Society who claimed that Ms. Setalvad, Mr. Anand, Tanvir Jafri and two others had embezzled funds to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crore which were meant for the construction of “Museum of resistance” memorial.

According to the FIR, the office bearers of Ms. Setalvad’s NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, and portal Sabrang have been booked under sections 438 of CrPC, 72(A) of Information Technology Act, and 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC.

The apex court said it was not inclined to interfere with the Bombay High Court order and also asked the Gujarat Government not to “sensationalize” the case.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court. However, we extend the interim protection from February 28 to March 31. The petitioners can file petition in Gujarat High Court for anticipatory bail which has to be heard independently without being influenced by the observation made by the Bombay High Court,” a bench comprising justices S J Mukhopadhaya and Kurian Joseph said.

The bench said it will be open for the Bombay High Court to go into the question of law that whether anticipatory bail can be entertained in the cases registered in different state.