Supreme Court Accepts Magistrate's Apology For Remanding Accused Violating SC Order; Imposes Rs 25K Fine On Police Officer

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2) passed the sentence in the contempt case against a Police Officer and the Judicial Magistrate from Gujarat for the arrest and remand of an accused in violation of its order granting him interim anticipatory bail.

While the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the Magistrate, it imposed a fine Rs. 25,000 on the Police Officer.

On August 7, the Court had held them guilty of contempt of court and directed their presence today for hearing on sentence.

Factors Considered by the Court.

The Court considered that the judicial officer has a 14-year unblemished career record and that there was an erroneous practice followed by the Gujarat Courts whereby police are allowed to seek remand of the accused despite the grant of anticipatory bail.

Today, at the outset, Senior Advocates K Parameshwar and Manish Singhvi, appearing for the police officer and judicial officer respectively, pleaded that the court must consider mitigating circumstances before passing the sentence.

Parmeshwar submitted that the court may impose an exemplary fine to meet the ends of justice. He added that the police officer had filed an unconditional apology with the affidavit. Further, the court may consider its precedents where it held that a fine is enough to meet the ends of justice. 

Justice Gavai remarked that the police officer was accused of fabricating CCTV, giving third-degree treatment, misusing the criminal proceedings, and acting as a delivery agent for a rival person. He said: "How conveniently the CCTV [footage] is not available only during time period...It's aptly clear why he has done it."

Justice Mehta: "An order of protection is passed against an individual and quite therefore his liberty is curtailed. Why will it not be covered under Section 13(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act?"

Section 13(a) says: "(a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice."

Justice Gavai: "Liberty is curtailed. In jail, he employs third-degree treatment. CCTV footage is conveniently not available for that period."

The advocate stated that the present proceedings only concern the remand application filed by him. As regards other allegations, the departmental proceedings are already going on.

Justice Mehta said: "You will not be able to point out any single graver violations [where the court simply ordered a fine to be imposed]. We asked you simple question. Curtailing the liberty of a man for three days in spite of order of this court. Do you want that rule of law to prevail in this court?...Your remand application was found to be totally malafide on the face of it. "

The court ordered the contemnor to be present. When the contemnor arrived, Justice Gavai remarked: "Not even a remorse on his face."

Justice Mehta added: "Apology is just on paper."

Parmeshwar stated that the police officer has an exemplary career and courts have taken a lenient view when government officers are concerned. The criminal proceedings regarding allegations of third-degree torture are already going on and he is suspended for 10 months. 

On the basis of all this, the court held: "In our order dated August 7, 2024, we have held R.Y. Raval, police inspector, Surat, contemnor respondent 1, and Deepaben Sanjay Kumar Thakar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (contemnor no. 2) in contempt of court's order...Though both contemnors have filed affidavits of apologies and thought arguments have advanced, we don't propose to go into them in view of orders we propose to pass. In regards to Deepaben, we have taken into consideration erroneous practice in State of Gujarat of filing remand application and also unblemished service record. We take a lenient view and accept her unconditional apology. So far as R.Y Raval is concerned, we impose a fine of Rs. 25,000."

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested the bench to remove the conviction of the judicial officer.

Justice Mehta remarked that the court is not sitting in review of the conviction order and the findings of the court cannot be washed away. However, the Court expunged the findings against the judicial officer in paragraph 59.4 of its order, which states: "The contemnor-respondent No. 7's contumacious actions also contributed to the illegal detention of the petitioner for almost 48 hours after the period of police remand had come to an end."

CASE TITLE: TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT, SLP(Crl) No. 14489/2023, TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANI Diary No.- 1106 – 2024