Teesta Atul Setalvad vs The State Of Gujarat

2. The bank accounts, in all nine, of the appellants have been seized on the instructions of the Investigating Officer as a sequel to the complaint filed by the members of Gulberg Co-Operative Housing Society, registered by D.C.P. Police Station, bearing CR No.1/2014, on 14th January, 2014 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The bank accounts were seized and intimation in that behalf was given to the concerned Magistrate on 21st January, 2014. The appellants filed a petition before the Bombay High Court, being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.173/2014, for quashing of the FIR and for setting aside the freezing order which, however, was rejected on 4th November, 2014 with liberty to the appellants to approach the jurisdictional court. Against the said decision the appellants preferred special leave petition before this Court, being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3330/2014, which was allowed to be withdrawn on 5th May, 2014 with liberty to the appellants to move 4 before the Competent Authority. The appellants then filed Special Criminal Application No.2710/2014 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. That application was, however, withdrawn on 29th September, 2014 with liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for appropriate relief.

3. The appellants thereafter moved formal applications before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Ahmedabad, being Miscellaneous Application Nos.175-178/2014 which were dismissed by common order dated 28th November, 2014 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Aggrieved, the appellants filed four separate revision applications before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, bearing Criminal Revision Application Nos.249-252 of 2015. While the said revision applications were pending, the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellants in connection with the alleged offence came to be rejected by the High Court by a speaking order dated 12th February, 2015. That order has been challenged by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1512/2015 which has been converted into Criminal Appeal No.338/2015 and is pending for consideration by a larger Bench in terms of order dated 19th March, 2015. The 5 appellants have been given interim protection of stay of arrest during the pendency of the said appeal.

7. Name, Add and details of Accused :-

12. Details of 1st Information :- ……… 8 The facts of this case are such that as mentioned on above date, time and place, the accused named in had conspired and exhibited the photographs and video of Gulberg Society and other affected areas and the accused had put up on the CJP and Sabrang‟s websites with the help of internet against the wishes of the complainant and on the website appealed wealthy people to deposit donation in the CJP‟s IDBI bank account as well as Union Bank of India Account of Sabrang and thereby obtained deposits of crores of rupees and used the money for personal use by diverting in different institutions with one/same address thereby indulging in wrong activities in the name of religion and used Rs. 1,51,00,000/- for personal use between 2009 and 2011 thereby committed breach of trust & cheated the victims by using internet.

(f) Upon scrutiny of the saving accounts Nos.014104000142595 & 014104000142601 of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 with the IDBI, Mumbai, it was noticed that both the accounts were opened on 30.04.2005. The FCRA permission from MHA for CJP and Sabrang Trust was granted in November, 2007. Proposal to purchase the Gulbarg Society was mooted by petitioner no.1 orally in December, 2007 and formally in January, 2008, Resolution was passed by the society accepting her proposal in June, 2008 and thereafter the advertisements commenced and monies started pouring in. Further no substantial income of any nature, except from the CJP and Sabrang Trust, is noticed in both the above mentioned personal accounts of the petitioners, which were further invested in fixed deposits, shares and mutual funds such as ICICI Prudential, Reliance Capital, Kotak Mahindra, Franklin Templeton etc.

24. In our opinion, such a course would meet the ends of justice. We say so also because the explanation offered by the appellants in respect of the discrepancies in the accounts, pointed out by the respondents, will be a matter of defence of the appellants. 42

25. We clarify that at an appropriate stage or upon completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and is of the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he will be well advised to issue instruction in that behalf.

26. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

…………………………….CJI.

15th December, 2017.