Man Remanded To Police Custody In Gujarat Violating Supreme Court Order : SC Issues Contempt Notice To Cops, Magistrate

The petitioner's lawyer submitted that despite the interim anticipatory bail order of the Supreme Court passed on December 8, he was served with a notice on December 12 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. He alleged that while in police custody, he was threatened and beaten.

The petitioner submitted that despite already being arrested once by the Police on December 11 and released on anticipatory bail after execution of the necessary bond as directed by the Supreme Court, the Magistrate did not release the petitioner and insisted that he should file a regular bail application. Thereafter, another regular bail application was preferred by the petitioner following which he was released and was made to execute another bond.

The bench expressed its anguish at the violation of the order.

"This is a gross contempt of the Court's Order on the face of the record.  How could he have been taken into custody? How could the Investigating Officer dare to seek the remand?" Justice Mehta asked.

 "Let this be corrected in some manner.  The I.O. and Magistrate must learn some lesson from this. We will issue the notice for contempt to the magistrate also. This is the manner in which they deal with the Supreme Court's Order?" Justice Gavai said.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju at this juncture offered unconditional apology saying that the officers committed a "blunder". But the bench was not moved and said that whatever happened was "gross". 

"The very filing of the (remand) application was contempt on the face of it. Blatant illegal custody for four days!" Justice Mehta expressed.  "Let the Magistrate and the IO be inside for four days..this is a fit case where Gujarat has to be corrected at least in some manner”

When the petitioner's lawyer submitted that all that happened to him in the station was recorded in the CCTV installed in the police station, Justice Gavai asked him to get copies of the footage. However, the State's counsel said that the CCTV was not functional.

"It is intentional", Justice Mehta said. Justice Gavai added, "It shows the conduct. On the very same day it is not functioning!"

"Yes, that shows the conduct. In a civil nature case, why remand is required? A murder weapon was to be recovered or what? Grossest contempt. They have to explain that why CCTV was not functioning. Surat being a biggest business hub of the Country, and CCTV is not functioning!" Justice Mehta expressed disbelief. Justice Gavai then pointed out that as per Supreme Court's directions, CCTVs are mandatory at all police stations.

Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, the Court issued notice to the respondents except the respondent no.5, to be returnable on 29.01.2024. The bench said that it will decide on January 29 on whose personal presence will be required from the next day.

"File an affidavit. If we find, we will ask the DGP to take the Contemnors to the custody and send them to Sabarmati Prisons or some other...when we ask for their personal presence, ask them to come with their bag-baggage when they show their presence on 29.01.2024," Justice Gavai orally said.

The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by one Tusharbhai Rajnikanth Bhai Shah against the officials for arresting and remanding him in violation of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on December 8. The petitioner, who was named as an accused in an FIR for the offence of cheating, approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court denied him bail. On December 8, while issuing notice on his petition, the Court granted him interim anticipatory with a condition that he should continue to cooperate with the investigation.

He relied on the Supreme Court's Judgment passed in the case Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra to contend since, the anticipatory bail granted by this Hon'ble Court was never cancelled and therefore, the Petitioner cannot be made to be file a regular bail application to be released from custody.

Senior Advocate Iqbal H Syed and Advocate-on-Record Mohammad Aslam appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANIDiary No.- 1106 – 2024