No arrest of Teesta Setalvad in fund embezzlement case till May 31: SC

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Apr 09 2018 | 2:05 PM IST

The Supreme Court today extended the interim protection from arrest and transit anticipatory bail granted to activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband by the Bombay High Court from May 2 to May 31 in the fund embezzlement case lodged by the Gujarat police.

The top court, however, asked Teesta and her husband Javed Anand to seek anticipatory bail from the competent forum in Gujarat.

A bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph said if remedy is sought by Teesta and her husband then the concerned court should decide the matter on merit.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, said the Bombay High Court had passed a blatantly illegal order and transit anticipatory bail should not have been granted.

Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for Teesta and her husband, said the HC was right in granting transit bail as the alleged offence pertains to an educational project in Maharashtra.

He said in this case, the HC had jurisdiction to issue the transitory bail.

The bench, which also comprised Justices Navin Sinha and M M Shantanagoudar , however, observed it is a settled law that where the FIR is lodged, the jurisdiction lies with the concerned court of that state.

On April 5, the Bombay High Court had ordered social activists Teesta Setalvad and her associate Javed Anand should not be arrested till May 2 in a criminal case lodged against them by the Gujarat police for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The case was registered by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch on a complaint accusing Setalvad and Anand of "fraudulently" securing grants of Rs 1.4 crore from the union government through their NGO Sabrang Trust between 2008 and 2013.

As per the Gujarat police, the funds had been ostensibly obtained to help the victims of the 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots, but were misappropriated or used for other purposes.

The complaint was registered under sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the Indian Penal Code.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 09 2018 | 2:05 PM IST

Next Story