| Author | Message | ||
     Tilak Megastar Username: Tilak Post Number: 25140 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 106.51.111.83 Rating: N/A |
oka PM ki .. oka 420 ki personal grudges emuntayi bokka? and personal ga frame cheddamani try chesi fail ayyindi .. and that cant be used as a hindrance for judicial trial in future .. ala aithe prati case ni personally motivated ani cheppi cold storage lo petteyyali .. usually disputes are between "two persons" .. but in this case .. it is actually between Gujarat State and Teesta Setalvad .. and she looted funds in the name of riot victims and is now shamelessly not giving an account of the misuse .. dont know how you can support her PoV under any circumstance Narendra Modi, Pradhan Mantri, Bharata Ganarajya - www.pmindia.nic.in - www.narendramodi.in | ||
| Teluguhero Comedian Username: Teluguhero Post Number: 1399 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 63.151.12.167 Rating: N/A |
http://teesta-setalvad-evidence.blogspot.com/ Evidence Against Teesta Setalvad Allegations against Teesta Setalvad.. a few instances 1. Teesta Setalvad 's former colleague Rais Khan has made startling revelations by filing an affidavit before the Nanavati commission... extracts from his first ever TV interview. View Interview: Video 2. Yasmeen Banu Sheikh, Best Bakery Case prime prosecution witness has accused Teesta Setalvad for forcing her to lie in the Trial court at Mumbai. View: Video 3. Headlines Today journalist Rahul Singh has alleged in a affidavit submitted to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Lunawada that Teesta Setalvad did not tell him that the Pandarwada graves were legal. She did not inform him that she had not taken proper permission from the authorities to dig up the graves and that she knew that the bodies were buried by the police with proper procedure. View Affidavit: Click 4. Raiskhan Aziz Khan Pathan an ex-employee of Teesta Setalvad 's Citizen for Justice & Peace (CJP) has filed an affidavit on 26th September, 2011 with the Chief Justice of Mumbai High Court for the re-trial of the Best Bakery case. He has in his affidavit to the Chief Justice narrated the whole sequence of incidents - of how witnesses were brought to Mumbai, kept in Bhindi Bazaar, and tutored by Teesta Setalvad for giving false testimonies in the court. He has also requested the court to direct foreignsic science labs to do lie detector / polygraph test of himself & Teesta Setalvad to bring the truth before the court. View Affidavit: Click 5. Raiskhan Aziz Khan Pathan has written to the Chief Justice of the Mumbai High Court seeking his help in view of the threats he has received from Muslim fundamentalists on behalf of Teesta Setalvad. View Request: Click 6. Teesta Setalvad hacks ex-employee Rais Khan's Email ID - Police Complaint. View Police Complaint: Click 7. Yasmeen Banu Sheikh, a prime prosecution witness in the Best Bakery Case in her affidavit dated 17/06/2010 to the Chief Justice Mumbai H.C. has accused Teesta Setalvad for forcing her to lie in the Trial court at Mumbai. View Affidavit (Gujarati): Click 8. Teesta Setalvad 's NGO paid Gujarat Riot witnesses. Ex-employee of Teesta Setalvad 's Citizen for Justice & Peace (CJP), Rais Khan's Bank Statements. View Bank Statements: Click, To be read in conjunction with: Click 9. Teesta Setalvad committed perjury by signing Zaheera Shaikh's affidavit which was filed in the Supreme Court in CRL.M.P. No. 1250-1253/2004. View Affidavit: Click 10. Defamation complaint filed by Rais Khan, former aide of social activist Teesta Setalvad, before a Magisterial court in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. View Complaint: Click 11. Rais Khan Pathan, former associate of Teesta Setalvad, writes an open letter to Justice P.B. Sawant listing all the criminal cases & charges against Teesta Setalvad. View Letter: Click 12. Gulbarg Society members have sent a notice to Teesta Setalvad and have threatened legal action against her in a cash dispute issue. View Letter: Click View Video 1 / Video 2 13. Gulbarg Society members have filed a Criminal complaint against Teesta Setalvad to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad. View Letter: Click View: Video 1 / Video 2 14. Teesta Setalvad may face contempt proceedings for approaching the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Geneva despite giving assurances to the Supreme Court. Rais Khan Pathan has written a letter to SIT chief R.K. Raghavan. View Letter: Click 15. Teesta Setalvad flouts Companies Act, 1956 & Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, complaint filed by leading Advocate. View Details: Click 16. Compromise with Teesta Setalvad or face Muslim Terrorists, R.B. Sreekumar to Rais Khan. View Letter: Click Listen to Audio: Click 17. Teesta Setalvad's ex-aide Rais Khan exposes Zakia Jafri's lies in a letter to Special Investigation Team (SIT). View Letter: Click Listen to Audio: Click 18. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India is taking legal action against Teesta Setalvad's company Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd. View Letter: Click 19. Teesta Setalvad colluded with Zakia Jafri against Modi after Haren Pandya's family refused to do so. View: Video 20. Teesta Setalvad instructed me to ignore Congress leaders involved in Gujarat Riots, shares ex-aide Rais Khan. View: Video 21. FIR filed against Teesta Setalvad and others. View FIR (Gujarati): Click 22. Teesta Setalvad bought Jewellery & Wine from funds meant for Riot victims: Crime Branch. View Affidavit: Click 23. Teesta Setalvad admits using Riot Victims' funds for Jewellery, Wine and other personal expenses: Crime Branch. View Affidavit: Click | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 49174 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 63.79.91.16 Rating: N/A |
bottom line ettandi | ||
| Ramramesh Side Hero Username: Ramramesh Post Number: 3370 Registered: 03-2014 Posted From: 216.31.219.19 Rating: N/A |
Modi ki Teesta ki personal grudges vunnayi annavi fact ee kadha? Justice should not only be done but not even the appearance of injustice should be there.... | ||
| Teluguhero Comedian Username: Teluguhero Post Number: 1398 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 63.151.12.167 Rating: N/A |
http://www.firstpost.com/india/teesta-setalvad-bail-a-bizarr e-case-of-supreme-courts-exceptionalism-2168059.html Teesta Setalvad bail: A bizarre case of Supreme Court's exceptionalism By Kartikeya Tanna The case against Teesta Setalvad, based on a complaint filed by residents of Gulbarg Society on allegations that she and her husband Javed Anand, trustees of Citizens for Justice and Peace and Sabrang Trust, for forgery and criminal breach of trust of the 2002 riot victims has taken a bizarre turn. The complaint, in essence, alleged that funds collected by the two trusts in memory, and with the help, of Gulbarg Society victims for certain promises (construction of a museum and reconstruction of their homes) were instead used for personal expenses of the two. In what should have been a simple case of whether or not to grant anticipatory bail to the two to avoid arrest by the Gujarat Police, the two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court has instead referred the matter to a larger bench. The full text of the judgment can be accessed here. File image of Teesta Setalvad. AFP imageFile image of Teesta Setalvad. AFP image First, some history. Following a complaint filed by residents in March 2013, the Gujarat Police registered an FIR after almost 10 months of verifying the details of the complaint. Apprehending arrest on the filing of the FIR, Teesta and Anand filed an unsuccessful application for anticipatory bail in the city sessions court. Their appeal to the Gujarat High Court was also unsuccessful, thus allowing the Gujarat Police to detain Teesta and Anand for custodial interrogation. It is useful to state here that the applications and appeals by Teesta and Anand were for anticipatory bail - which is different from regular bail. The purpose of the former is to approach the courts to grant relief from custodial arrest even before a case is made out. Regular bail is when the process of prosecution has commenced or, at times, when there is an appeal to a higher court after a lower court's conviction is pending. The considerations in either case are substantially different. Supreme Court jurisprudence on anticipatory bail indicates that such bail must be granted only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or be subject to a frivolous case, or if there are reasonable grounds for holding that he/she is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse liberty while on bail. The Gujarat High Court felt custodial interrogation was necessary because, among other reasons, Teesta and Anand never remained present before any investigating agency and have, in the High Court’s words, "employed every means to avoid the due process of law". The judgment cites "stock replies" given by the two - either feigned loss of memory, or had asked the investigating authorities to give questions in writing. On a couple of questions relating to the production of vouchers, IT returns and other documents, they replied that it is "neither necessary nor desirable" to respond and this information was being sought only to "harass and defame us". It is critical to point out here that it was only one week after arguments were concluded and judgement was kept reserved that Teesta's counsel tried, unsuccessfully, to produce vouchers and other documents on the court's record, perhaps apprehending that the High Court would be rejecting their application for anticipatory bail. The court particularly noted some materials on record which indicated that the two may have exerted pressure or influence on auditors (based out of Mumbai) who did not cooperate with the investigation. The 63-page Gujarat High Court judgement, a must-read, can be accessed here. Perhaps unprecedented in recent history, within hours of the Gujarat High Court judgment (12 February), Teesta's counsels before the Supreme Court got it to stay her arrest until the next day by mentioning the matter before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India (most likely, hearing another matter), citing the emergence of an "extraordinary situation". A regular bench then heard the matter the next day giving time to Teesta's counsel Kapil Sibal to file additional documents and staying the arrest for a week. However, the bench reportedly made oral observations that the allegations against the two were "grave" and made it clear the Supreme Court would not let them make it a "political issue". Come 19 February, news hit the stands that the bench that heard the matter on 13 February, which discouraged Teesta's counsel from making it a political issue, was replaced by a new bench headed by the CJI. According to this Times of India report, an inquiry with the court registry revealed that none of the judges on the earlier bench had recused themselves. The Supreme Court registry later clarified, although only partially, giving rise to greater doubts. While the registrar said that one of the judges had recused himself, he did not inform the press which judge sought a recusal. As the Times of India reported, both judges had told the newspaper that they had neither orally nor in writing conveyed their desire to recuse themselves. When the new bench did hear the case, it told the Gujarat Police that it will tell Teesta to produce the documents regarding the case while staying the arrest till it pronounced its judgement. Again vital to note here that, although every media report stated this direction from the court to Teesta to cooperate with the Gujarat Police, the written order does not contain a single thing about ordering Teesta and her husband to cooperate. Finally, when the judgement came out last week, there is only one word to describe it - bizarre. It cited Bolingbroke, Edmund Burke and John Adams, the second President of the US, on the importance of liberty. It then stated that because there was an assertion by the Gujarat Police about the non-cooperation of Teesta and Anand, the Supreme Court thought it appropriate that the matter be heard by a larger bench. ALSO SEE Anger in Jatland: After SC ruling on quota, Jats may take the protest route Anger in Jatland: After SC ruling on quota, Jats may take the protest route Hashimpura verdict: Why Muslims feel let down after acquital of 16 PAC men Hashimpura verdict: Why Muslims feel let down after acquital of 16 PAC men Does Rajan's rate cut decision shows division at the top in RBI? Does Rajan's rate cut decision shows division at the top in RBI? Why a larger bench? There is absolutely no explanation for it. The Supreme Court may well disagree with the Gujarat High Court’s findings and grant Teesta and Anand anticipatory bail. Of course, in doing so, it has to explain why it disagrees with the High Court’s elaborate rationale. A matter is referred to a larger bench if there is a complex issue of constitutionality or if there is a conflict between a former two-judge bench’s order and the one sought to be pronounced by the current bench. None of these were at play here. It just has to take a stand that, based on the facts and circumstances, it does or does not think it fit to uphold the Gujarat High Court judgment. Yet, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, decided on something inexplicable. This view is confirmed by senior advocate KK Venugopal. Crucially, however, while the process of reference to a larger bench remains pending, the stay on Teesta and Anand's arrest would continue to be in force. How the Supreme Court has dealt with the Teesta case since the time Kapil Sibal intervened in an ongoing case to have the court urgently ponder over Teesta's liberty is judicial exceptionalism of the most perplexing kind. |
