During today’s hearing before the top court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said that the Gujarat High Court denied bail to her on the ground that she did not file a plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of the case.
Such a reason for rejecting a bail plea would amount to turning the jurisprudence on its head.
“It is turning the entire jurisprudence on its head. You refuse bail because you have not filed a 482 for quashing. But even with no prima facie finding of guilt bail rejected. The whole judgment proceeds on the basis that I did not seek quashing,” Sibal said.
Sibal also highlighted how there were convictions in most Gujarat riots cases and how the Supreme Court itself had set up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe those cases.
“Gujarat police refused to file FIR. FIR was not filed on actual eye witness accounts. It is at this stage the supreme court set up SIT at the instance of NHRC. One case was transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra. Barring one case there is conviction in all cases and all of this is based on eye witness accounts. There is no complaint for 20 years by anybody,” he pointed out.
Sibal also said that the Supreme Court’s June 2022 judgment does not render any finding on fabrication of evidence.
“Judgment of this court was rendered on June 24, 2022. It has no finding on fabrication of any evidence. The SIT never argued that. It is the state of Gujarat who made a submission before the court that these are tutored witnesses,” he said.
He also questioned the manner in which Setalvad was arrested immediately after the top court’s judgment.
“What was this haste that on day of the judgment next day you arrest based on the submission of Solicitor General. This is unheard of,” he stated.
Sibal claimed that the Raees Khan, who used to work for Teesta before being fired in 2008, had filed numerous complaints against her and highlighted that it was his statement that led to the proceedings.
“Now Raees Khan is a member of Wakf board. What is happening is very very sad,” he added.
He questioned how the High Court accepted Khan’s statement about Ahmed Patel giving him ₹30 Lakhs in 2002 to ‘destabilise the government’, especially after Patel having passed away.
“All statements made to defend himself has been believed by the judge. Then a completely new allegation was made by Raees Khan which was never made since 2002. So a new allegation qua a person who has passed away so that he cannot deny it,” he explained.
He emphasized that the State machinery could not be used to persecute the people and underlined that the convictions in Gujarat riots cases were on the basis of eye witness accounts and not affidavits.
Source: Barandbench
