The Supreme Court on Wednesday made “absolute” the anticipatory bail granted to rights activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand in connection with a case of alleged misappropriation of funds lodged against them by Gujarat police.

A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul passed the order after noting that the chargesheet is yet to be filed.

However, the bench asked the couple to extend all necessary cooperation to the investigating agency to complete the probe, after additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju complained that the accused were causing the delay in the filing of the chargesheet by not cooperating.

“These Special Leave Petitions were filed challenging the conditional anticipatory bail and certain remarks made against the respondents… Heard learned senior advocate
Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr S.V. Raju, learned additional solicitor-general…A considerable passage of time has lapsed. We are informed that a chargesheet has not yet been filed in the case…. Learned ASG submits that there is an element of lack of cooperation from the respondents and that is the reason the chargesheet could not be filed. Be that as it may, the respondents will cooperate with the investigations as and when required. The interim anticipatory bail is made absolute…,” the bench, which included Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra, said.

When Sibal, who appeared for the couple, pleaded that certain remarks made by the high court be expunged as they would otherwise prejudice the accused during the trial, the apex court said: “It is trite to say that any observation made at the stage of bail will hardly have any influence on the trial. As such we feel we are not required to say anything more than that.”

The case relates to the alleged misappropriation of Rs 1.4 crore central grant received in 2010 by the Sabrang Trust floated by the couple, purportedly for rehabilitating the victims of the 2002 post-Godhra riots.

The bench passed the orders while dealing with the cross-appeals filed by the Gujarat government and the couple with regard to the anticipatory bail granted in 2019 by the Gujarat High Court to the couple.

While the Gujarat government has filed an appeal against the high court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to the couple, Teesta and her husband have sought the expunction of some adverse remarks made by the high court while granting them bail.

According to the Gujarat government, taking advantage of an educational scheme floated by the Centre in 2010, Teesta and her husband — who are trustees of Sabrang Trust — had illegally obtained Rs 1.40 crore from the ministry of human resource development with the connivance of some government officers.

Raeeshan Azizkhan Pathan, who was employed as a field coordinator for the Citizen for Justice and Peace, another trust owned by the couple, had complained that the fund was misused by the duo for their personal expenses and misappropriated for other purposes. Based on Pathan’s complaint, the Gujarat police registered criminal cases against Teesta and Javed.

The sessions court had in March 2018 dismissed the couple’s plea for anticipatory bail but the Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail in February 2019.

Assailing the high court’s order, the Gujarat government pleaded that the sessions court had while declining the plea for anticipatory bail held that the investigation was at a crucial stage and any relief granted to the accused persons would intrude in the investigation.

The state complained that the high court granted them bail despite noting that

n The accused have not cooperated in the investigation and have exhibited reluctance to reply to certain questions put to them by the police officer

n The accused have remained evasive inasmuch as they have just handed over the papers in the form of documentary evidence to substantiate their defence that the grant was sanctioned in accordance with law and the amount of the grant was used only for the purpose for which the grant was sanctioned, i.e., the project which the trust undertook at the relevant point of time

n That non-cooperation by the accused is writ large as merely asking the chartered accountant of the trust to clarify certain queries raised by the investigating officer cannot and does not amount to sufficient co-operation of the accused/respondents with the investigation;

n The accused/respondents were expected to explain everything in detail and by giving satisfactory answers to the various questions that the investigating officer has to put to them, which they have not done in the present case;

n There is prima facie material, as reflected from the papers of the investigation, to indicate that the accused/respondents obtained the grant by practising fraud; and that the amount received by the trust by way of grant was not used in the project but the same came to be misappropriated by the accused/respondent herein for their personal use.