NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked social activist

and her husband Javed Anand to explain to

why huge funds they had collected for the 2002 riot victims allegedly never reached the beneficiaries and rejected their plea to de-freeze nine bank accounts belonging to them and their two NGOs.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the petitions by Setalvad, Anand and

and Peace and Sabrang Trust, and said the procedure mandated by law was followed by the investigating officer of

Police in freezing the bank accounts. It told the couple to explain to police how the funds were used to answer allegations of misappropriation.Indicating that Setalvad and her husband now face a long probe, the SC said their bank accounts would remain frozen till the police completed its probe into alleged embezzlement of funds meant for riot victims and filed either a char- gesheet or a closure report before the court concerned. Gujarat Police had alleged that approximately 44% of donations received in

and around 35% of donations received by CJP were transferred to the personal accounts of Setalvad and Anand.

Setalvad, through counsel Kapil Sibal and Aparna Bhat, termed the freezing of the bank accounts political vendetta to wreak vengeance for her litigation and social work to get justice for the victims and survivors of the 2002 riots. Appearing for Gujarat police, the additional solicitor general gave details of how funds collected as donations were embezzled by Setalvad and Anand and how funds were transferred from the NGOs to their personal accounts.

Justice Khanwilkar, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “Although both sides have referred to statements of accounts and vouchers to buttress their respective submissions, we do not deem it necessary nor think it appropriate to analyse the same while the matter in hand which emanates from an application preferred by the appellants to defreeze the stated bank accounts pending investigation of the case. Indisputedly, the investigation is still in progress.” “The appellants will have to explain their position to the investigating agency and after investigation is complete, the matter can proceed further depending on the material gathered during the investigation. The suspicion entertained by the investigating agency as to how the appellants appropriated huge funds, which in fact were meant to be disbursed to the unfortunate victims of 2002 riots, will have to be explained by the appellants. Further, once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the concerned court, it would be open to the appellants to apply for de-freezing of the bank accounts...”

The SC clarified that if at an appropriate stage or on completion of the probe, “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 instructions in that behalf”.