In a scathing rebuke, the Supreme Court of India recently chastised a Surat magistrate and the Gujarat Police for their disregard of court orders regarding anticipatory bail. The apex court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, expressed dismay over the remanding of an accused individual to custody, despite being granted interim anticipatory bail by the highest judicial authority in the land.

The genesis of this reprimand lies in the startling revelation that magistrates in Gujarat have been appending conditions to anticipatory bail orders, allowing investigating officers to file applications for remand. Such a practice, as noted by the Supreme Court, directly undermines the very essence and purpose of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which pertains to anticipatory bail.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, acknowledged the error in the remand application and disclosed that the officials responsible had been suspended. However, the court expressed its dismay at the prevalent attitude towards court orders in Gujarat, highlighting the need for retraining magistrates within the state.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court bench observed a disturbing trend in bail decisions within Gujarat, particularly in cases where offences carry sentences exceeding seven years. It noted a tendency to adjourn proceedings without deciding on the merits, citing the Antil case judgment of July 2022, which emphasized the need for timely adjudication of bail applications.

The case under consideration stemmed from a plea filed by a cheating accused alleging physical assault and extortion by Surat police officials despite being granted pre-arrest bail by the Supreme Court. The accused's plea sought contempt proceedings against the state government and implicated police officers for their blatant disregard of court directives.

The Supreme Court's firm stance on judicial compliance resonates with its earlier directives in the Antil case, where it underscored the importance of enforcing CrPC provisions in arrests and trials. It further called for expeditious bail decisions, highlighting concerns over the low conviction rate and urging High Courts to ensure adherence to legal norms within the subordinate judiciary.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also represented the Gujarat government, while Senior Advocate IH Syed acted as legal counsel for the accused.

Advocates Mohammed Aslam and Vishrut Bhandari, representing the aggrieved party, brought this matter to the forefront, seeking accountability and adherence to judicial principles norms within the subordinate judiciary.

Case: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat.