The Supreme Court held a Gujarat judicial officer and a cop guilty of contempt for arresting a person and remanding him to police custody in gross violation of top court’s December 2023 order granting him anticipatory bail.
A bench headed by justice BR Gavai held the investigating officer in the case RY Raval of Vesu police station and the additional chief judicial magistrate, Surat Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar guilty for violating the top court’s order by blatantly misinterpreting its protection order and directed the matter to be heard on September 2 for deciding the quantum of punishment for their action.
“The exercise of seeking police custody remand during currency of the interim protection granted to the petitioner was in sheer defiance of this court’s order and tantamounts to contempt on the face of the record,” the bench, also comprising justice Sandeep Mehta, said.
The order was passed on a contempt petition filed by one Tushar Rajnikant Shah who was an accused in a cheating case. He allegedly received an amount of ₹1.65 crore from the complainant towards the sale of 15 shops but failed to hand over the possession despite an oral agreement.
He was granted protection from arrest by the top court on December 8 last year. But despite the order, he was arrested on December 11 and released the same day on bail.
A day later, he received summons from the police to appear before the trial court for hearing on his remand application. Despite the top court’s order, the judicial officer remanded him to police custody from December 13 to 16 on the understanding that the top court order, while protecting against arrest, did not clearly suggest that it applied to remand as well.
The court further noted that the judicial officer made her contempt gross by insisting on execution of bail bonds on December 16, when the police remand got over. Later when he moved a complaint before the same judge alleging torture by police during custody, the application was rejected without ordering for medical examination on the ground that he harboured revenge against police.
Taking serious exception to the judicial officer’s conduct, the bench said, “This conduct of contemnor-respondent No. 7 (judicial officer) gives a strong indication of her biased approach in the matter… 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 court noted that the allegation against the petitioner was of cheating which prima facie was of a civil nature where custody was not necessary unless there was proof that the accused was not cooperating. “It is clear that contemnor-respondent No. 7 acted with bias and in a high-handed manner while granting police custody remand of the accused,” the bench said.
Also Read: Down And Out In Paris: Vinesh Phogat Announces Retirement Day After Games Snub
