Top

Supreme Court stays social activist Teesta Setalvad's arrest for a day

Gujarat Police had already reached Mumbai to arrest them
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed till Friday the arrest of social activist Teesta Setalvad of Centre for Justice and Peace and her husband Javed Anand in a misappropriation case. The Gujarat High Court rejected their anticipatory bail petitions earlier in the day and they faced imminent arrest.
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice H. L. Dattu and Justices A.K. Sikri and Arun Mishra restrained the Gujarat Police from arresting Ms. Teesta and others on an urgent verbal mention by counsel Kapil Sibal that the Gujarat Police had already reached Mumbai to arrest them following the dismissal of their petitions by the High Court.
He said the might police of Gujarat was to arrest her anytime and sought protection. The Bench while directing the matter to be listed for hearing on Friday stayed the arrest till then.
According to the Gujarat Police, some former residents of Gulbarg Society had alleged that Ms. Setalvad and her NGO had restrained them from disposing of their properties after the Gujarat riots by promising them to purchase land and construct a memorial.
However, the museum was never built citing lack of funds.
The Gujarat Police registered a criminal case against Ms. Setalvad, her husband Javed Anand, former MP Ehsan Jafri’s son Tanvir and two office-bearers of Gulbarg Society, Salimbhai Sandhi and Firoz Gulzar for embezzlement of Rs 1.51 crore.
Ms. Setalvad said that the charges against her were malicious and baseless.
Noting that it was a case of a “political vendetta” by the perpetrators of the riots, she said “attempts are being made constantly by the communal political outfits and the (Gujarat) state machinery to curtail the movement and freedom of the petitioners and also to arrest their activities, so as to cynically reverse the successes of the difficult struggle for reparation and justice.”
Her anticipatory bail plea was rejected by a sessions court in Gujarat and on appeal the High court declined to interfere with the order and said custodial interrogation was necessary in this case.
( Source : dc )
Next Story