<p>The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow activist Teesta Setalvad’s request for defreezing her bank accounts and those maintained by her husband and their two NGOs.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan, however, asked Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, to respond to four separate special leave petitions filed by Teesta, husband Javed Anand, and NGOs Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace.<br /><br />Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, contended that all their bank accounts had been frozen and the money given by the UN, Ford Foundation and Union HRD ministry among others, could not be used, though the allegations were made only against Sabrang Trust.<br /><br />He cited Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that allowed the police to seize only such properties which were suspected to be proceeds of the crime. “The best course is let the investigation be completed,” the bench said, unimpressed with Sibal’s contention.<br /><br />The court, which sought the presence of the Gujarat counsel, later asked them to file responses to four petitions, without issuing any formal notice in the matter. It posted the case for August 17. The bank accounts of Teesta, Anand and their two NGOs had been frozen by the Crime Branch of the Ahmedabad Police in 2014.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow activist Teesta Setalvad’s request for defreezing her bank accounts and those maintained by her husband and their two NGOs.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan, however, asked Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, to respond to four separate special leave petitions filed by Teesta, husband Javed Anand, and NGOs Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace.<br /><br />Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, contended that all their bank accounts had been frozen and the money given by the UN, Ford Foundation and Union HRD ministry among others, could not be used, though the allegations were made only against Sabrang Trust.<br /><br />He cited Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that allowed the police to seize only such properties which were suspected to be proceeds of the crime. “The best course is let the investigation be completed,” the bench said, unimpressed with Sibal’s contention.<br /><br />The court, which sought the presence of the Gujarat counsel, later asked them to file responses to four petitions, without issuing any formal notice in the matter. It posted the case for August 17. The bank accounts of Teesta, Anand and their two NGOs had been frozen by the Crime Branch of the Ahmedabad Police in 2014.</p>
