Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad in Forgery Case: Teesta Setalvad vs. State of Gujarat (2023) INSC 637 (19 July 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 637

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Dipankar Datta, J.

Can an accused be denied bail based on a preliminary finding of guilt by the High Court, and without considering the established principles for granting bail? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Teesta Setalvad vs. State of Gujarat. The core issue revolved around the rejection of bail by the High Court to the appellant, who was accused of fabricating evidence. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta, overturned the High Court’s decision and granted bail to the appellant.

Case Background

The case stems from a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 24th June 2022, in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat. In that judgment, the Court noted a “coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the State of Gujarat along with others” to create sensation by making false revelations. Following this, on 25th June 2022, an FIR was registered against the appellant, Teesta Setalvad, for offences under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. She was arrested on the same day and remanded to police custody for seven days, followed by judicial custody on 3rd July 2022.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

After the rejection of her bail application by the Sessions Judge on 30th July 2022, Setalvad approached the High Court. The High Court issued a rule on her application, returnable on 19th September 2022. Aggrieved by the High Court’s failure to grant interim relief, Setalvad appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 2nd September 2022, granted her interim bail, directing the High Court to consider her application independently. However, on 1st July 2023, the High Court rejected her bail application, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). These include:

• Section 468 IPC: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 469 IPC: Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.
• Section 471 IPC: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• Section 194 IPC: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence.
• Section 211 IPC: False charge of offence made with intent to injure.
• Section 218 IPC: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.
• Section 120B IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

The core of the allegations against the appellant is that she fabricated false evidence, particularly affidavits, to implicate higher officials in the State Government. The prosecution argued that this was an attempt to destabilize a democratically elected government.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Shri Kapil Sibal):

• Shri Sibal argued that only Sections 194 and 468 of the IPC are non-bailable.
• He contended that even if the allegations are taken at face value, the ingredients of Section 194 and 468 IPC are not met.
• Regarding Section 194 IPC, he submitted that it applies only to evidence recorded before a court, and there was no evidence that the appellant fabricated false evidence to cause a person to be convicted of a capital offense.
• He argued that the observations made in paragraph 88 of Zakia Ahsan Jafri could not be used against the appellant because she was not a party to the proceedings. The State had vehemently opposed her application to be joined as a petitioner.

Respondent’s Arguments (Shri S.V. Raju):

• Shri Raju argued that the appellant was involved in a heinous crime of trying to get innocent people convicted by forging evidence.
• He submitted that several people had deposed that the appellant forced them to give affidavits to implicate higher officials.
• He contended that the appellant’s actions were an attempt to destabilize a democratically elected government and that she was not entitled to bail because she had accepted huge sums of money for these activities.
• He argued that the High Court had rightly rejected the bail application after appreciating the materials on record, which prima facie showed an offence under Section 194 IPC.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that Section 194 of the IPC applies only to evidence recorded before a court was a novel interpretation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the bail application of the appellant, particularly when the High Court had made a preliminary finding of guilt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Laws:

• Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others [1980] 2 SCC 559 – Supreme Court of India: The court relied on this case to emphasize that a detailed elaboration of evidence should be avoided at the stage of bail.
• Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat 2022 (9) SCALE 385 – Supreme Court of India: This case was the basis for the FIR against the appellant, and the court had to consider the observations made in this case.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to forgery for the purpose of cheating.
• Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others [1980] 2 SCC 559: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that a detailed elaboration of evidence should be avoided at the stage of bail.
• Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat 2022 (9) SCALE 385: The Court acknowledged this case as the basis for the FIR against the appellant but did not delve into the merits of the observations made in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was influenced by several factors:

• The High Court’s approach of making a preliminary finding of guilt at the stage of bail was considered perverse.
• The Court emphasized that detailed elaboration of evidence should be avoided at the stage of bail.
• The Court noted that the appellant is a lady, has been in custody since 25.06.2022, and the alleged offences relate to the year 2002.
• The Court also noted that the investigating machinery had the advantage of custodial interrogation for seven days.
• The Court observed that the appellant was on interim bail since 2nd September 2022, and had not been called for investigation even once.
• The Court took into consideration that most of the evidence in the present case is documentary, which is already in possession of the Investigating Agency.

The Court rejected the High Court’s approach, emphasizing that the High Court had made observations on the merits of the case, which is not permissible at the stage of considering a bail application. The Court also highlighted the established principles for granting bail, including the nature of the evidence, the period of custody, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.

The Supreme Court stated, “The findings are totally contrary, to say the least.” and further, “To say the least, such findings are totally perverse.” The court also observed, “The essential ingredients of the investigation including the custodial interrogation having been completed, the relief of interim bail till the matter was considered by the High Court was certainly made out.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court cannot make a preliminary finding of guilt at the stage of considering a bail application.
• Detailed elaboration of evidence should be avoided at the stage of bail.
• The court must consider established principles for granting bail, including the nature of the evidence, the period of custody, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.
• The court took into consideration that the appellant was a lady, had been in custody since 25.06.2022, and the alleged offences relate to the year 2002.
• The court also noted that the investigating machinery had the advantage of custodial interrogation for seven days.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The appellant is to be continued on bail, as granted on 2nd September 2022.
• The appellant’s passport shall remain in the custody of the Sessions Court.
• The appellant shall not attempt to influence the witnesses and shall remain away from them.
• The prosecution can move the Supreme Court directly for modification of the orders if they feel that any such attempt is made by the appellant.
• The observations made in the impugned order and any of the observations made by the Supreme Court in its order would not influence the trial court at the stage of the trial.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot make a preliminary finding of guilt at the stage of considering a bail application. The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles for granting bail and emphasized that a detailed elaboration of evidence should be avoided at this stage. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural norms and ensuring that bail is not denied based on premature assessments of guilt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Teesta Setalvad and granted her bail, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s order. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in making a preliminary finding of guilt at the stage of bail and in not considering the established principles for granting bail. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms and ensuring that bail is not denied based on premature assessments of guilt.