New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended till December 8 the anticipatory bail granted to social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand in an embezzlement case.
The court made it clear to the couple that they should cooperate in the investigation and comply with the anticipatory bail conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court, failing which the CBI will be free to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, Ibrahim Kalifulla and V. Gopala Gowda extended the bail taking note of the fact that the matter could not be argued on merits by the three-judges, to whom a two-judge bench had referred the issue. The bench issued notice to the two accused in the CBI’s appeal seeking their response.
Among the allegations levelled against them by the Gujarat government is a case of fraud related to a proposed plan to build a memorial for the victims of the Gulberg Society killings, as well as embezzlement of funds. After the Gujarat High Court declines anticipatory bail, the apex court granted anticipatory bail in February this year and this was extended from time to time.
During Wednesday’s hearing, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the protection granted earlier should be continued till the matter was heard on merits. Senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani, for Gujarat government did not oppose the plea as it was not on merits.
Meanwhile Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the CBI submitted that an appeal has been filed against the Bombay High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Ms. Teesta and her husband in the case relating to alleged violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.
He submitted that Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt. Ltd (SCPPL) run by Ms. Setalvad and Mr. Anand received funds to the tune of $ 2,90,000 from the U.S.-based Ford Foundation. This was in violation of the FCRA and also they had misused the funds received. The SG submitted that the two are not cooperating in the investigation and are not supplying the required documents.
Justice Dave made it clear to Mr. Sibal that if the required documents are sought, they would supply but said that all the necessary documents had already been provided to the CBI.
Justice Dave quoting the High Court judgment told Mr. Sibal “there is a finding that you have not supplied income tax returns and audited accounts.” The bench posted the matter for further hearing on December 1.
