In a recent case, the Supreme Court has expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of Gujarat Police officers and a Magistrate who took a man into custody despite an interim anticipatory bail granted by the Apex Court. The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, issued contempt notices to key officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police in Surat, and the Police Inspector of Vesu Police Station.

The contempt notices were also directed at the Additional Chief Magistrate in Surat, who remanded the petitioner to police custody, disregarding the interim order of the Supreme Court. The petitioner's lawyer highlighted the violation, stating that despite the Supreme Court's anticipatory bail order issued on December 8, the petitioner received a notice on December 12 instructing him to appear before the Magistrate in response to a police custody application.

Allegations surfaced that the petitioner, during his police custody from December 12 to 16, was subjected to threats and physical abuse. The petitioner had already been arrested on December 11, released on anticipatory bail following the Supreme Court's directives, but was not released by the Magistrate, who insisted on filing a regular bail application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another regular bail application, leading to his release after executing another bond.

Expressing dismay at the blatant violation of the court's order, Justice Mehta questioned the actions of the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate, stating, "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 Gavai emphasized the need for corrective action and issued contempt notices to the Magistrate, asserting that such actions were unacceptable.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju offered an unconditional apology, acknowledging the officers' blunder. However, the bench remained unswayed, describing the incident as "gross" and emphasizing the contemptuous nature of the remand application.

Despite the apology, the bench insisted on accountability, with Justice Gavai suggesting that both the Magistrate and Investigating Officer spend four days in custody. The petitioner's lawyer indicated that the incidents during the petitioner's custody were recorded on CCTV, prompting the bench to request copies of the footage. However, the state's counsel claimed that the CCTV was not functional, leading to suspicions of intentional non-compliance.

The court scheduled a hearing on January 29, 2024, issuing notices to the respondents except one, to decide whose personal presence would be required in the subsequent proceedings. The bench expressed its intention to evaluate the matter further and, if necessary, direct the Director General of Police to take the contemnors into custody.

The contempt petition, filed by Tusharbhai Rajnikanth Bhai Shah, revolves around the alleged violation of the Supreme Court's interim anticipatory bail order issued on December 8. Shah, accused in an FIR for cheating, approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court denied him bail, seeking protection in line with the anticipatory bail granted by the Apex Court. 

Sr. Advocate Mr. Iqbal Syed, appeared for the petitioner along with Mr. Mohammad Aslam, AOR, Mr. Vishrut Bhandari, Mr. Aniq Qadri, Mr. Prithu Parimal, Mr. Aaman Syed,  Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh,  Mr. Avinash Kumar Bharti,  Mr. Dr. Ram Kishor Chaudhary, Mr. Krishna, Advocates.

Case: TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANI

Diary No.- 1106 – 2024.

Click to read/download order.