NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has convicted a Gujarat police inspector and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, of contempt of court for arresting and remanding an accused, disregarding an interim anticipatory bail order passed by the apex court.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta directed R Y Raval, then Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat and Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, then 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat to remain present in this court on September 2, 2024 for the quantum of sentence.
The bench also held the practice prevalent in Gujarat of routinely imposing restrictive condition on anticipatory bail pleas, and allowing the police blanket permission to seek police custody remand of the accused, is in direct contravention of the Constitution bench judgment of this court.
On December 8, 2023, the court had granted anticipatory bail to Surat resident Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah in a cheating case. However, the businessman was remanded in police custody, and allegedly threatened to extort Rs 1.65 crore from him in the presence of the complainant.
He approached the top court as he was served with a notice on December 12, 2023, directing him to remain present before the magistrate in response to the police's custody application. The Magistrate remanded him to police custody for four days till December 16. The petitioner alleged that in police custody, he was threatened and beaten.
Also Read: Delhi High Court accepts apology in social media contempt case, orders ₹1 Lakh fine [Read Order]
After examining the matter, the bench said the investigating officer, police inspector acted in flagrant defiance and gross contempt of this court's order by applying for police custody remand of the petitioner herein.
The bench said the portrayal made by the officer in the remand application to claim that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation was totally cooked up and a clear attempt to draw wool over the court's eyes.
"During subsistence of this court’s order dated 8th December 2023, there was neither any authority with the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand of the accused nor was the prayer for remand justified in the backdrop of the fact that the FIR itself was lodged in relation to a civil dispute which arose from an oral agreement for sale of property," the bench said.
The court also said the explanation offered by 6th ACJM that the order dated 13th December 2023 granting police custody remand of the petitioner was passed in the bona fide exercise of jurisdiction, based on a genuine misunderstanding of the legal position does not appeal to us.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Issues Criminal Contempt Notice to Lawyer for Disrespectful Comments in VC
"The judge acted with bias and in a high-handed manner while granting police custody remand of the accused. The reason offered by her that she was acting under a misconception owing to settled and prevailing practice in the State of Gujarat, is clearly in disregard to the order passed by this Court. The said plea does not hold water since the order under contempt dated 8th December 2023 allowed only one interpretation i.e. the accused-petitioner had to be released on bail in the event of arrest," the bench said.
The bench held hold R Y Raval, then Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat and Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, guilty of having committed contempt of this Court’s order of December 8, 2023.
In its judgment on contempt plea, the bench said,
"Criminal jurisprudence requires that before exercising the power to grant police custody remand, the courts must apply judicial mind to the facts of the case so as to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the police custody remand of the accused is genuinely required. The courts are not expected to act as messengers of the investigating agencies and the remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner".
The bench also found the mandate to install and ensure functionality of CCTV cameras in all police stations by virtue of this court’s judgment in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini has not been complied in letter and spirit by the concerned police officials.
