The Bombay high court granted anticipatory bail to social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Ahmed rejecting the CBI’s claim that they needed custody of the couple to ascertain what they did with the funds received from foreign agencies.
The duo had filed a pre-arrest bail application in the Bombay high court after a special CBI court refused to grant them relief from arrest. They were facing arrest as the CBI had filed a case against them for receiving foreign funds in violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and allegedly misusing that money.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh on behalf of the CBI had contended before the court that the applicants were not cooperating with the investigating agency and they were not providing details about how money that was received as a donation from the US-based Ford Foundation was spent. He told the court that the Central government enacted FCR Act to keep check on foreign funds so that it is not used against the nation and the applicants have violated this Act. He pointed to a letter of the Gujarat government, which said that Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Ltd was a proxy organisation cultivated by the foundation with some long-term plan and the applicant’s action was posing a threat to the safety and security of the nation and also the public at large.
On the other hand senior counsel Aspi Chinoy and Mihir Desai told the court that the funds received by the applicant’s NGO is not a donation and has been misinterpreted by the CBI. They claimed that the amount was a tied payment in lieu of services provided to it and it was not like the applicant could use this amount as per their wish but the money was against fixed services. According to him, “This is a matter of interpretation.”
He also informed the court that the company had deducted TDS from the amount and TDS certificates were produced before the Income Tax department.
He also said that books of account and bank statements are available and would be provided to the investigating agency and only vouchers for the year 2004-05 were not available as it was not required by IT department to maintain records for more than seven years.
“I am unable to find anything to come to a conclusion of how the applicants are threat to sovereignty and integrity of the state or it is against public interest (sic),” observed Justice Mridula Bhatkar, while granting anticipatory bail to Ms Setalvad and Mr Anand.
The judge further observed that the case is based on documentary evidence and if the accused are saying that they do not have documents to show where money was utilised then the prosecution has right to prosecute them but there is no need for custodial interrogation.
“A citizen may conduct social activities and may have a different point of view which may not be liked by the government. However in a democratic state, a citizen may have his or her own point of view and it is the duty of the state to protect that right of different view,” observed the judge.
Justice Bhatkar also said, “A dissenting view cannot be said to be against he sovereignty of the nation. It may be against the policy of the government.” According to the judge being against the government and being against the sovereignty of the nation are two different concepts.
The judge than granted bail to applicants with condition that in case of arrest they should be released on surety of Rs 20,000.
They have been asked to inform the CBI about their address if they are going out of Mumbai and have been instructed not to leave India without prior permission from the court.
