Gujarat court to hear Teesta's anticipatory bail plea on Thursday

MUMBAI: The Gujarat high court is scheduled to hear the anticipatory bail plea made by social activist Teesta Setalvad in a criminal case of misappropriation of trust funds filed against her in the state.
The HC had earlier granted Teesta interim protection against arrest. The Bombay high court had earlier said it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear her plea wheh she first moved the HC in Mumbai.Teesta and her husband Javed Anand had moved the Bombay HC to quash the FIR in the misappropriation case against them. The Bombay HC had asked them to approach the court in Gujarat.
The Gujarat police have once again filed a detailed 80-page reply last week to oppose Teesta's pre-arrest bail plea. The thrust of their argument is that she has used trust funds and monies collected by her NGO for personal use. Earlier while opposing her plea in the Bombay HC the Gujarat police said she "embezzled funds" collected in the name of the 2002 Godhra riot victims. Setalvad refuted the allegations and said she was being falsely and "dishonestly" implicated.
Setalvad and Anand had challenged before the Bombay HC an FIR filed against them by the Gujarat police last year.
Earlier the HC had asked her to file for anticipatory bail before a Gujarat Sessions court which she did. The FIR against Teesta and Javed said that both the accused in the guise of collecting funds in the name of their NGO Sabrang Trust to set up a museum for victims of the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat at the site of Gulbarga housing society had allegedly misappropriated the funds and cheated the complainant. The FIR also invoked Section 72A of the Information Technology Act for disclosure in breach of lawful contract.
Teesta had earlier rebutted the police reply and said, "The state of Gujarat was spreading lies about Citizen for Justice and Peace, cheating victims of the riots."
She had filed a rejoinder to respond to each "baseless and malicious allegation" of the state and she said a former employee of the Organisation who had filed the complaint was being used as a proxy.