Supreme Court of India
TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAHversusKAMAL DAYANI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 588
- Decided
- 7 August 2024
Holding
An interim anticipatory bail order does not permit police custody remand, and any such remand without explicit court permission constitutes contempt of the Supreme Court’s order.
Summary
The Supreme Court granted the petitioner absolute interim anticipatory bail on 8 December 2023, ordering his release on bail if arrested. Despite this, the police remanded him to custody on 13 December 2023, and the magistrate failed to release him after the remand period, resulting in an illegal detention of about 48 hours. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience by the investigating officer and the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court held that the interim bail order did not permit police custody remand and that the remand application was unfounded, especially as the FIR stemmed from a civil dispute. Consequently, the investigating officer and the magistrate were found guilty of contempt, while other officials were exonerated, and the anticipatory bail was made absolute until the FIR is disposed.
Issues considered
- The scope of an interim anticipatory bail order under Section 438 CrPC and whether it bars police custody remand of the accused.
- Whether the investigating officer had authority to seek police custody remand after the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the magistrate erred in granting police custody remand and in detaining the petitioner beyond the remand period.
- The applicability of Sections 54, 200, 202, 203, 437, and 439(2) CrPC in the context of custodial violence complaints.
- The relevance of the prevailing practice in Gujarat regarding anticipatory bail and police remand.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167, s. 200, s. 202, s. 203, s. 437, s. 438, s. 439(2), s. 54
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 20, s. Article 21
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Income Tax Act, 1961
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Subjects
Anticipatory bailPre-arrest bailAbsolute interim protectionInterim orderSLP pending considerationRemand applicationPolice custodyPolice custody remandContemptWilful disobedienceContempt of the CourtIO and ACJM/Magistrate guilty of contemptCivil dispute given criminal colourOral agreement for sale of propertyCustodial violenceIllegal detentionIllegal custodyCustodial investigationNon-cooperation by the accusedRefusal to confess to the crimeTorture in police custodyIndividual freedomRight to liberty
Judgment
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 235 : 2024 INSC 588
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah
v.
Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Contempt Petition (C) D. No. 1106 of 2024
In
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023)
07 August 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of
anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon
final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration
before this Court. However, in gross violation of the said order, the
petitioner was remanded to police custody during the currency of
the aforesaid interim order. Present contempt petition filed by the
petitioner against the respondents-police officials and the ACJM.
Respondents, if committed contempt of this Court’s order.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Court – When – Accused-petitioner was remanded
to police custody during the currency of the interim order
passed by Supreme Court granting anticipatory bail to
him – Contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the
respondents (the police officials and the ACJM) for wilful
disobedience and contempt of the Court’s order:
Held: There was no such stipulation in the order under contempt
dtd. 08.12.2023 which was passed exercising jurisdiction u/Article
136 of the Constitution of India that the accused could be remanded
to police custody – The portrayal made by the Investigating Officer
(IO)-contemnor-respondent No. 4 in the remand application to claim
that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation was
totally cooked up – During subsistence of the order dtd. 08.12.2023,
there was neither any authority with the IO to seek police custody
remand of the accused nor was the prayer for remand justified in
the backdrop of the fact that the FIR itself was lodged in relation
to a civil dispute which arose from an oral agreement for sale of
property – There was neither bona fide nor genuine need for grant
of police custody of the petitioner – Thus, respondent No.4, acted
236 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in flagrant defiance and gross contempt of the aforesaid order
by applying for police custody remand of the petitioner – Further,
the ACJM-contemnor-respondent No.7 also acted with bias and
in a high-handed manner while granting police custody remand
of the accused – The SLP filed on behalf of the petitioner had
not been finally decided and was still pending adjudication, when
the remand application was entertained and hence, there was
no occasion for her to have proceeded to interpret this Court’s
order in a fanciful manner and that too while acting on a tainted
remand application filed by the IO – The reason offered by her
that she was acting under a misconception owing to settled and
prevailing practice in the State of Gujarat, is in disregard to the
order passed by this Court – Order under contempt allowed
only one interpretation i.e. the petitioner had to be released on
bail in the event of arrest – The action of the respondent No.7
in granting police custody remand of the petitioner and in failing
to release him upon completion of the said period is clearly in
teeth of this Court’s order dtd. 08.12.2023 and tantamounts
to contempt – 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 –
Detention of the accused till 18.12.23 was unconstitutional and
contrary to the letter and spirit of Articles 20 and 21 – Respondent
Nos.4 and 7 guilty of committing contempt of this Court’s order
dtd. 08.12.2023. [Paras 45-47, 59.3, 59.4, 60]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.482 – Anticipatory bail –
Investigating Officer (IO), if has the liberty to seek police
custody remand of the accused after anticipatory bail has been
granted by the competent Court – Plea of the Government of
Gujarat and the High Court of Gujarat about such long-standing
practice prevailing in the State of Gujarat:
Held: Power to grant anticipatory bail is to be exercised with a great
degree of circumspection and not in a routine manner – Once, a
Court exercises such power bearing in mind the strict parameters
applicable to grant of anticipatory bail, then giving a handle to the IO
to seek police custody remand of the accused, would virtually negate
and frustrate the very purpose behind the order of anticipatory
bail – Neither s.438, CrPC nor s. 482, BNSS, 2023 contemplate
any such liberty to the IO – The practice prevalent in the State
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 237
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
of Gujarat that the Courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail
application routinely impose the restrictive condition whereby, the
IOs are granted blanket permission to seek police custody remand
of the accused, in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail is
passed, is in direct contravention to the ratio of the Constitution
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) reported as [2020] 2 SCR 1. [Paras 55, 58]
Criminal jurisprudence – Power to grant police remand –
Exercise of, not to be in a routine manner – FIR was filed
against the accused-petitioner in a prima facie civil dispute
pertaining to sale and purchase of property – He was remanded
to police custody during the currency of the interim order
passed by Supreme Court granting anticipatory bail to him –
Impermissibility:
Held: Before exercising the power to grant police custody remand,
the Courts must apply judicial mind to the facts of the case so as to
arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the police custody remand of
the accused is genuinely required – Mere assertion on the part of
the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial
investigation is required would not be sufficient – The State would
have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why
custodial investigation of the accused is required for the purpose
of investigation – Courts are not messengers of the investigating
agencies and the remand applications should not be allowed in a
routine manner – In the present case, the FIR against the petitioner
was pertaining to a dispute which prima facie appears to be of
a civil nature and hence, the Magistrate ought not to have toed
the line of the Investigating Officer while granting police custody
remand of the petitioner – Application seeking police custody
remand of the petitioner could not have been entertained without
seeking permission of this Court as observed in Sushila Aggarwal
v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as [2020] 2 SCR 1. [Paras 48-50]
Criminal Law – Investigation – On being interrogated, accused
not obligated to confess to the crime:
Held: Non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the
accused refusing to confess to the crime is another – There would
be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated,
he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the
Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated
with the investigation. [Para 35]
238 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.54, 200, 202 –
Non-compliance – Complaint of custodial violence by the
accused-petitioner– ACJM-contemnor-Respondent No.7 made
a note on the complaint that after personally examining the
feet of the accused, she did not find any injury thereupon:
Held: When the accused makes a complaint of torture in police
custody, it is incumbent upon the concerned Magistrate to have got
the accused subjected to medical examination as per the mandate of
s.54 – The formal complaint lodged by the petitioner on 16.12.2023
was proceeded with by 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
who took cognizance thereof on 22.12.2023 and directed that the
complaint be posted for verification – After cognizance had been
taken on a private complaint, the statements of the complainant
and his witnesses ought to be recorded by taking recourse to the
mandatory procedure prescribed u/ss.200 and 202 – However,
in sheer disregard to the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2023, the
respondent No.7 dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner
which order was rightly reversed by the High Court in the revision
petition filed by the petitioner. [Para 54]
Case Law Cited
Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat (2014) SCC
OnLine Guj 14451 – overruled.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2020] 2 SCR 1 : (2020)
5 SCC 1 – followed.
Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010]
15 SCR 201 : (2011) 1 SCC 694; Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit
Singh and Another [2020] 13 SCR 770 : (2021) 1 SCC 184;
Sanuj Bansal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10536/2023); Rekha v. State
of T.N. [2011] 4 SCR 740 : (2011) 5 SCC 244; Ashok Kumar v.
Union Territory of Chandigarh (2024) SCC OnLine SC 274; P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019] 14 SCR 450 :
(2019) 9 SCC 24 – referred to.
List of Acts
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India;
Income Tax Act, 1961; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 239
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
List of Keywords
Anticipatory bail; Pre-arrest bail; Absolute interim protection;
Interim order; SLP pending consideration; Remand application;
Police custody; Police custody remand; Police custody remanded;
During currency of the interim order; Contempt; Order under
contempt; Contempt of the Court; Contempt petition; Wilful
disobedience; Contempt of the Court’s order; IO and ACJM/
Magistrate guilty of contempt; Remand application; Civil dispute
given criminal colour; Oral agreement for sale of property;
Non-functioning CCTV cameras; Defiance; Gross contempt;
Contemptuous; Contemnor; Contumacious actions; Custodial
violence; Illegal detention; Illegal custody; Custodial investigation;
Non-cooperation by the accused; Refusal to confess to the crime;
Torture in police custody; Alleged custodial violence subject matter
of departmental proceedings; Individual freedom; Right to liberty.
Case Arising From
INHERENT/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 1106 of 2024
In
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14489 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2023 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLMA No.15242 of 2023
With
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023 and Special Leave
Petition(CRL.) Nos. 537 and 1116 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Iqbal Syed, Sr. Adv., Rajivkumar, Anurag Singh, J.K Mishra, Amaan
Syed, Mohammad Aslam, Aniq Kadri, Vishrut Bhandari, Dipesh Dalal,
Abid Ali Beerani, Advs. for the Petitioner.
S.V. Raju, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.Gs., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,
Nikhil Goel, D.N. Ray, R Basant, Sr. Advs., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
Prashant Bhagwati, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Neha Singh, Ms. Devyanti
Bhatt, K. Parameshwar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Kushagra
Pandey, Ms. Radha Gupta, Ashutosh Ghade, Shushil Shukla, Nimit
Bhimjiyani, Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Neha Bhidey, Ms. Dharita
Purvish Malkan, Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Alok Kumar, Kush Goel, Advs.
for the Respondents.
240 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
By the Court
Contempt Petition (Civil) No(s). ……….of 2024 (D.No. 1106 of
2024) in SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14489 of 2023
1. The instant petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience by the respondents-
contemnors of the order dated 8th December, 2023 passed by this
Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023.
Brief facts: -
2. The petitioner, along with other co-accused, was arraigned as an
accused in FIR No. 11210068230266 dated 21st July, 2023 filed by
the contemnor-respondent No. 6 herein(the complainant), with an
allegation that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1.65 crores
in cash from the complainant towards the sale of 15 shops but the
possession thereof was not handed over to the complainant despite
the assurance given by the accused at the time of entering into an
oral agreement.
3. The petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with the said
FIR, sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which was
denied whereafter, an application for anticipatory bail was filed before
the High Court, which also came to be rejected. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner approached this Court by filing SLP(Crl.) No. 14489
of 2023 seeking anticipatory bail.
4. This Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order
dated 8th December, 2023(hereinafter being referred to as ‘the order
under contempt’), which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that
the High Court has not even considered the case
on merits.
2. In that view of the matter, issue notice, returnable
in four weeks.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 241
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
3. In addition to the usual mode, liberty is granted to
the petitioner to serve notice through the Standing
Counsel for the respondent/State.
4. By way of ad interim order, in the event of arrest
petitioner be released on bail in connection with
FIR being No.11210068230266 dated 21.07.2023
registered with Vesu Police Station, Surat City,
subject to him executing personal bonds for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only),
with one or more sureties in the like amount.
5. However, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with
the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer
as and when directed to do so.”
5. The petitioner appeared at Vesu Police Station on 11th December,
2023 with a copy of the order under contempt dated 8th December,
2023 intending to join and cooperate with the investigation. Shri R.Y.
Raval, Investigating Officer(contemnor-respondent No. 4) arrested
the petitioner and thereafter, released him on bail upon execution of
the requisite bail bonds in terms of order dated 8th December, 2023.
On the very same day, the petitioner was served with a notice under
Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
being referred to as ‘CrPC’) requiring him to remain present at the
police station before the Investigating Officer for recording of further
statement. When the petitioner appeared at the police station, another
notice dated 12th December, 2023 was served upon him requiring
him to remain present before the Court of concerned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of seeking remand. The
contents of the notice dated 12th December, 2023 are relevant and
shall have a material bearing on the outcome of the instant contempt
petition and hence, the same are reproduced below for the sake of
ready reference: -
“ NOTICE
It is hereby given to you this notice in written form that,
for the matter of offence committed u/s. 420, 120(b) of
Indian Penal Code registered before Vesu Police Station
vide Part-A-11210068230366/2023 Complainant Abhishek
Vinodkumar Goswami aged: 28 years, occupation:
Business Real Estate Residing at C/405, Surya Palace, Ct
242 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Light, Surat City Mobile No 9879215044 filed a complaint
against you and others for which you are remained present
as per order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the matter of Special Leave Application No.14489/2023 on
08/12/2023 and you were arrested on 11/12/2023 at 2100
hrs and thereafter, released on bail on basis of the order
of the court. During course of investigation proceedings
of the offence, you are hereby informed to remain in(sic)
present by yourself or through your advocate on 13/12/2023
at 1500 hrs before 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and
ACJM Surat Court No 608, New Court Building, Athwalines
Surat for the matter of remand which please note seriously.
Date 12/12/2023 R.Y. Raval
Police Inspector
Vesu Police Station
Surat City
To,
Tushar Rajnikant Shah
Residing at
Flat No E/902, Florence Building,
Opp Rajhans Cinema, VIP Road,
Vesu, Surat City Mobile No 9825038475”
6. It is apposite to note that this notice makes a distinct reference to
the order dated 8th December, 2023 passed by this Court. However,
the notice is blissfully silent on the aspect that the petitioner had not
cooperated with the investigation.
7. In compliance of the said notice, the petitioner appeared before
learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat(‘contemnor-
respondent No.7’) on 13th December, 2023 on which date, the
Investigating Officer, filed an application seeking his police custody
remand for seven days. When the remand application was taken up,
learned counsel representing the petitioner produced a copy of the
order under contempt dated 8th December, 2023 and made a fervent
submission that the Supreme Court, while providing interim protection
to the petitioner had not granted any liberty to the Investigating
Officer to seek police custody remand and thus, the application
seeking remand ought to be rejected. However, the 6th ACJM, Ms.
Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, the contemnor-respondent No. 7
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 243
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
in gross derision to the order dated 8th December, 2023 passed by
this Court granting interim protection to the petitioner, observed that
the order of Supreme Court did not indicate that the Investigating
Officer could not seek remand of the accused or that the Court
cannot grant remand and accordingly, she proceeded to remand
the petitioner to police custody till 16th December, 2023. The order
dated 13th December, 2023 which is the foundation of these contempt
proceedings is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ORDER PASSED BELOW APPLICATION TO AVAIL
POLICE CUSTODY REMAND OF THE ACCUSED
TUSHAR RAJNIKANT SHAH IN THE MATTER OF VESU
POLICE STATION CRIMINAL BEARING REGISTER NO.
11210068230266/2023.
1. Application produced is taken into consideration similarly;
the record of the matter is also taken into consideration.
Heard arguments advanced by Learned APP Shri S.P.
Chauhan for Prosecution side and Learned Advocate Shri
Dipesh Dalal for Accused Person.
2. It is the representation of Learned APP Shri Saurabhbhai
Chauhan that, an offence against accused person for
offence committed u/s. 420, 120[b] of Indian Penal code is
registered for maximum sentence of seven years in which
the main role played by the present accused and total of
15 shops were shown to be present along with Accused
No. Sumit Goyenka and gave the information that he is
the builder and accordingly the Complainant and witness
obtained A sum of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- as consideration
and also by way of cheque a sum of Rs.54,00,000/- also
obtained and in that regard accused no.5, 6 and 7 given
payment Diaries and then planned delinquency by the
accused Conspirator committed the offense of cheating
[deception] fraud. According to the ground for remand, they
submit that the main accused has taken total of 9 cheques
from the complainant which cheques are important for the
present matter and same are required to be collected for
the purpose of investigation proceedings. Recovery of
Rs. 1,65,00,000/- is pending and in furtherance, addition
of other offence of Umra Police Station First Criminal
244 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Register No 62/2019 for offence committed u/s. 447, 448,
451, 427, 114 of Indian Penal Code is registered and
accordingly, accused person having criminal history and
does not cooperate with police investigations The other
co-accused are absconding, and hence, requested to allow
police custody remand of Days-7.
3. On 05/10/2023, Learned Advocate Shri Dipesh Dalal
on behalf of accused person produced copy of order of
R/Criminal Misc. Appln [For Anticipatory Bail] No 15242/2023
and order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Special Leave to Appeal [Cri] No 14489/2023 dated
05/12/2023 submitted and it was submitted that there is
an order to release the bail if the accused is detained
and there is no mention of remand. In furtherance,
they submit that the petitioner has cooperated with
the police investigation and will continue to cooperate
in the future as well so there is no need for remand.
In furtherance, they submit that the provision of maximum
punishment in the present matter is seven years, therefore,
in the matter of Satender Antil versus CBI of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court A remand application cannot be granted
mechanically as held in the judgment of the further submit
that the accused has been present in the police station
frequently and has cooperated fully in the investigation,
hence the said application is proposed to be rejected.
4. Heard, on 21/7/2023 for the present matter, the
complainant filed u/s 420, 120[b] of Indian Penal Code
against a total 7 accused in Vesu Police Station. A complaint
under section 4R0, 120(b) is lodged which provides for
a maximum sentence of seven years. In the present
matter, the co-accused is yet to be arrested, if we take the
matter diary regarding the behavior of the accused Tushar
Rajinikanth Shah mentioned in the remand petition. they will
be called on 8/12/2023 for the matter of Special Leave to
Appeal No 14486/2023 is not present at the police station
for investigation till the order of “releasing the applicant
from bail due to arrest” is passed. The facts of the matter
diary become significant. The police have visited the house
of the main accused, issued notices and reminders under
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 245
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
section 41(A) but the accused himself was not found
present at the house, his wife or his mother was present
and replied that he was there for the last two months. Not
present means the accused person did not cooperate
with the police investigation proceedings. Taking into
consideration the matter diary dated 11/12/2023, appeared
after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and wrote
his answer which answer taking into account the facts of
the main complaint, it is prima facie evident on the record
that the present accused has been dealt with other co-
accused, the prime of the present matter. Accused Sumit
Goenka is yet to be arrested, other accused are yet to be
arrested, police investigation is pending in that direction. In
the present matter it is pending investigation as to which
accused took the paid compensation of the project property;
the main accused has admitted in his statement that the
diary was written by him. So, it becomes clear that their
criminal role is there and if we note the extreme importance,
in the present matter the prosecution has made serious
allegations of pre-planned and criminal conspiracy, then
a thorough investigation is pending in that regard. In the
present matter it becomes necessary to bring the modus
operandi of the accused on record. At this stage, it is to
be noted that in the present time, the amount of offence
related to property like land and houses has increased, in
which most of the builder level people are also involved,
while in the present matter, there is a deal of 15 shops,
so the compensation amount is Rs. 1,65,00,000/- paid,
thorough investigation of the offence becomes necessary
so the reasons stated in the remand application are true.
The present application is eligible to be granted if the co-
accused is investigated properly and the modus operandi
of the offence is placed on record. In furtherance at this
stage there is truth in the reasons stated. The present
application is eligible to be granted if the co- accused is
investigated properly and the modus operandi of the crime
is placed on record. In furtherance, it is to be noted at
this stage that Learned Advocate Shri Dipesh Dalal
has emphasized on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court but in that order no order has been made that
246 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the investigating officer cannot ask for remand or the
court here cannot grant remand so the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Satender Antil versus CBI All
the principles laid down in the judgment have been
followed by this Court. In the present matter Remand
application not automatically but taking into consideration
the circumstances of the matter, diary and conduct of the
accused, I consider the following order to be appropriate
just and appropriate in the interest of justice.
(emphasis supplied)
// ORDER //
Remand application is partly allowed.
Police custody remand of Accused Tushar Rajnikant Shah
is granted till 16/12/2023 at 1500 hrs.
Signature of accused person and Investigation Officer
shall be obtained below order passed.
Investigation Officer shall strictly adhere [follow] the
guideline of Hon’ble Supreme Court and send a copy of
this order to Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Pronounced this order on 13/12/2023 in the open court.
13/12/2023 Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar
Surat 6th Addl. Chief Judicial city
Surat [GJ00943]
Seen
Sign Illegible
Seen
Sign Illegible
Accused is taken into custody
And remand order copy is received.
Sign Illegible
Today explanation of remand order is received,
Sign Illegible”
8. The petitioner has alleged that during the period of police custody remand,
he was tortured by the Deputy Commissioner of Police(contemnor-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 247
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
respondent No. 3) and the Police Inspector(contemnor-respondent
No. 4). It is further alleged that upon completion of the period of
remand, the petitioner was compelled by the 6th ACJM, i.e., contemnor-
respondent No. 7 to move a regular bail application under Section
437 CrPC which was objected to by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor(in short ‘APP’). The 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent
No. 7) proceeded to allow the application for bail vide order dated
16th December, 2023.
9. On 16th December, 2023, when the petitioner was presented before
the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No. 7) at the end of the remand
period, he made a complaint regarding torture in police custody which
fact was noted by the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No. 7) in the
order sheet dated 16th December, 2023. The 6th ACJM(contemnor-
respondent No. 7) proceeded to record the statement of the petitioner
virtually as if he was being cross-examined. She also undertook an
exercise of self-observation of the legs of the accused-petitioner
and made a remark in the proceeding sheet that no signs of beating
were visible thereupon. These proceedings are relevant to the issue
at hand in a limited sphere and thus, the same are reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
“My name is Tushar Rajnikant Shah, I am 43 years old. I
want to say many things, but my mental condition is not
proper so that I can properly dictate everything.
Question: What is your complaint against police?
Answer: Yes, I am beaten a lot, tortured also.
Question: On which part of body beaten?
Answer: Allowing me to sit and on the bottom of the
leg beaten and beaten with belt written as
Satyashodahk Yantra.
Question: Who has beaten?
Answer: Three officers were there, (1) ACP Gurjar
Saheb, IPS and other two I can identify if I
see them and they were in simple dress and
name plate was not there.
I have not given food since I went there.
Complainant Abhishek or Akhilesh on whose
face black spot is there was doing torturing
arriving there.
248 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Question: What torturing was done?
Answer: To give money, do settlement, this all belongs
to my father and will not spare you.
Question: Except this what is your complaint?
Answer: Now I will state after taking lunch peacefully.
Question: You are standing on your legs?
Answer: Yes
Question: Do you have any problem in standing?
Answer: In left leg I feel more problem.
Question: Do you came walking on your leg in the court?
Answer: Yes
Question: Any other thing you want to say against
police now?
Answer: Nothing now
Above statement is read by me and thereafter I put my
signature.
After taking said statement of the accused on bottom portion
of the leg of the accused I have done self-observation
wherein no sign of beating is found.
Before me
Sd/- Illegible
16/12/23
(Kum. D.S. Thaker)
Today, the accused who is present after completion of
remand, made a complaint against the police stating that
they have ill-treated him which has been registered as
per the said statement of the accused. However, after
a detailed checking from the bottom of the legs of the
accused, no signs are found, as alleged. It is the complaint
of the accused that he is beaten by “Satyashodhak Yantra
written belt”, however, it is to be noted that the clothes
the accused was wearing on the day when remand was
granted to the accused are different from the clothes he
is wearing today after three days of remand, it could be
seen that the same is clean and proper. Even looking at
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 249
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
the physical condition of the accused, it could be concluded
that he was kept in good condition and he was provided
with clean clothes by his family which was handed over
to the accused by the police. It is the submission of the
accused that he had not been provided with food on the
day when he went on remand. Even if the statement of
the accused is to be noted and believed to be correct, it
could not be possible that after beaten with the belt, as
alleged, the accused could stand properly on his leg today.
Therefore, the statement made by him that he has not
been provided with food cannot be believed. The accused
in the beginning had stated that, he has a lot of things to
say but due his mental condition, he has not been able
to express everything clearly. However, it is peculiar to
note that during the aforesaid statement made by the
accused, he was frequently looking at his Ld. Advocate
while giving reply due to which the accused was asked
that, “why are you looking at your Advocate and giving
reply, ill-treatment is done with you then you must be aware
what has happened and it is you who have to give your
statement.” Thereafter, he has given his statement. The
accused has not complained that he is mentally tortured.
At this stage, it is notable to mention that the accused is
working as a builder having a reputation in society and
in such condition and circumstances, remaining in police
custody for interrogation, could have been uncomfortable
to him. Taking into consideration the mental state of the
accused, the serious allegations made by him against
the police could not be found reasonable and justifiable
in view of the present case and circumstances. All the
aforesaid observations and evaluations made today is
noted by directly observing the accused.
Sd/-Illegible
16/12/23
6th Add. Sr. Civil Judge &
A.C.J.M., Surat.”
10. It is noteworthy that pursuant to the order dated 16th December, 2023
granting regular bail, the petitioner was compelled to file fresh bail
250 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
bonds and was ultimately released from custody on 18th December,
2023. Apparently thus, the petitioner was kept in confinement for
a period of nearly 48 hours even after the period of police custody
remand had come to an end. Immediately after being released from
custody, the petitioner filed a complaint(Annexure P-10) to the
Commissioner of Police alleging torture by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police(contemnor-respondent No. 3), Police Inspector(contemnor-
respondent No. 4), Police Constable(contemnor-respondent No. 5)
and other police officials of Vesu Police Station. A prayer was made in
said complaint to call for and preserve the CCTV footage of the police
station, lest the police officials of Vesu Police Station tamper with the
evidence in form of the recording and thereby, cause grave prejudice
to the petitioner’s complaint case. The Commissioner of Police,
however, did not take any cognizance of the said complaint of the
petitioner whereupon, the petitioner filed a private complaint against
contemnor-respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as well as the complainant
i.e. contemnor-respondent No. 6. The petitioner categorically alleged
in the complaint that he was tortured in Vesu police station, where
the complainant of the case was also present, and was pressurised
to make payment to the complainant and compromise the matter.
11. Since the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No. 7) was on leave, the
learned Magistrate on duty (8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate)
took cognizance of the said complaint vide order dated 21st December,
2023, with a clear finding that the acts complained of were not
committed by the concerned police officials while discharging official
duties and therefore, sanction to prosecute was not required under
Section 197 CrPC. The complaint was kept for verification on 3rd
January, 2024.
12. Later, the 6 th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No.7) took up the
complaint and proceeded to reject the same vide order dated 6th
January, 2024 without recording the statements of the complainant
and his witnesses as mandated by Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The
contents of this order are also considered germane for the purpose
of adjudication of the instant contempt petition since the same has
a direct bearing upon the conduct of contemnor-respondent No. 7
and hence, the same are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake
of ready reference: -
“Criminal Inquiry No. 280/2023
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 251
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
ORDER BELOW EX-1
1. The said private complaint is filed by complainant Tushar
Rajnikant Shah against police officers u/s 323, 342, 344,
363, 384, 504, 506(2), 120(b) of IPC. It is submitted in
complainants application that against him in Vesu Police
Station A-part CR No.11210068230266/23 is filed u/s 420,
120(b) on date 21.7.2023 wherein he was mentioned as
accused no. 4. Investigation officer has taken his statement.
The complainant has filed in the Hon’ble Court of Principal
District and Sessions Judge at Surat Anticipatory bail
application no. 5922/2023 on date 27.7.2023 which was
rejected on date 1.8.2023. Thereafter he has filled in the
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court CRMA No. 15242/2023 and
made order partly allowing the same, being aggrieved by
it the complainant filed SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court on
date 5.10.2023 bearing No. 14489/2023 and order was
passed allowing his anticipatory bail application. Pursuance
to the said order complainant has given his statement on
date 11.12.2023 in Vesu Police Station as an accused
no. 4 and given bail bond and surety. Thereafter I.O, has
Issued notice on date 12.12.2023 to remain present and
therefore on date 12.12.2023 remained present at 1/00
and till night up to 10/00 given his reply. Thereafter, on
date 13.12.2023 LO. has demanded 7 days remand for
him and Hon’ble Lower Court made order allowing 3 days
remand. It is submitted by him that during police remand
custody with Satyashodhak Yantra belt beating 35 to 40
belt and to do compromise made, him physically uneasy
have done unbearable coercion and therefore he became
mentally unwell and family members gave courage and
he filed present complaint. The complainant has prayed
to do legal Inquiry against accused.
2.As per complaint of the complainant on date 3.1.2024
verification is taken and in the said verification he has
not stated facts as per his complaint. He has not stated
fact about which police officer has beaten him. Compare
to complaint application in his verification different facts
are coming out like “one person was standing on leg and
beat me in bottom of the leg.” As this one person which
252 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
police officer was there no such facts are stated. Asking
about who used to come to give clothes, no one has come
from his home, his friend Rajendranbhai Rawal came,
such facts he has stated but no such friend’s name is
mentioned by him as his witness or such witness affidavit
as a documentary evidence list is produced along with
original complaint. The said complainant has not made
satisfactory clarification about any person coming from
his family to give clothes. Thereafter he was clearly asked
that on completion of remand prior to bringing him in this
Court he was taken to medical checkup and its reply is
given by him in affirmative. At this stage it is notable that
in said original case i.e. Vesu Police Station A-part CR
No. 11210068230266/23 medical checkup produced it is
clearly mentioned that on body portion of the said accused
no apparent injury is there. Further it is notable that he
during checkup ha not submitted to the Doctor that he has
been assaulted. And in reference to the question he has
stated that, “ I am not allowed to speak such”, but at that
time the said complaint accused paikee which accused
did not allow him to speak such, no such facts are stated.
Thereafter he was clearly asked that on completion of
remand and on producing in this Court he has stated his
facts willingly as per his desire which is replied by him
in affirmative. Thereafter he was asked that this Court
has at the same time ask him to sit down and checked
his bottom of the legs but no signs of beating was found
such is stated and he gave his reply in affirmative. Thus,
said verification considering entirely with the complaint in
Vesu Police Station A-part CR No.11210068230266/23, the
accused has filed ill-treatment complaint and therefore in
the present separately given complaint nothing remains
to be done. Main notable facts is such that in medical
certificate of the accused no signs of assault are seen and
this Court has personally done observation but no such
signs are seen. Further, this Court has on the same day
after observing the accused personally in details of
observation and evaluation noted and considering it the
complainant’s private complaint is not maintainable.
The accused naturally remained in police custody and
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 253
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
in police lock up, have dissatisfaction against police
employees which is very casual and natural reaction.
No person would like to remain in police custody and
therefore the said complaint is prima facie is filed
keeping grudge against the police with a feeling of
revenge is made self-clear. As per the said complaint
no facts are recorded by accused after completion of
remand immediately is not stated in his ill-treatment
and therefore the said complaint is not valid and
tenable and therefore following order I understand is
reasonable and justified.
(emphasis supplied)
ORDER
1. The order is made to cancel the said complaint u/s.
203 of Cr. P.C.
Order declared today on date 06.01.2023 in open Court.
Date: 06.01.2024
Surat.
Seen
Sd/- Illegible
Sd/- Illegible 6.1.24
(Kum. Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thaker)
6th Add. Chief. Judi. Magistrate
Surat (GJ00943)
13. A perusal of the order reveals that the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent
No.7) proceeded to deal with the complaint in a pre-determined
manner and rejected the same without recording the statements of
the petitioner(complainant) and his witnesses as per the mandate
of Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. Acting purely on her own whims
and fancies, the contemnor-Respondent No.7 concluded that ex
facie the complaint was filed keeping grudge against the police and
with the feeling of seeking revenge. The order dated 6th January,
2024 passed by 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No.7) has been
set aside by the High Court of Gujarat and rightly so, in our opinion,
vide order dated 22nd February, 2024 while accepting the revision
petition filed by the petitioner, being R/Criminal Revision Application
254 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
No. 273 of 2024. Relevant observations made by the High Court are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“11. As per Section 203 of the Code, the learned Magistrate
ought to have recorded the statement on oath of the
complainant and of the witnesses and when in-charge
Magistrate has directed the complainant to remain present
with his witnesses and the witnesses were present before
the learned Magistrate, learned Magistrate without giving
any reasons for not recording the statements of the
witnesses has dismissed the complaint which is illegal
and improper. That if the statements of the witnesses were
recorded, learned Magistrate could have applied her mind
and form the judgment whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused or not. That learned
Magistrate has acted erroneously and has passed the
impugned order which is illegal and improper and hence,
the same is required to be set aside.
12. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that
the complainant was directed to remain present with
his witnesses and as per the submission of the learned
senior advocate for the applicant, witnesses were present
before the learned Magistrate, but their statements have
not been recorded. No reasons have been given by the
learned Magistrate for non-recording of the statements of
the witnesses and hence, the applicant original complainant
has not been given full opportunity for putting up his case
before the learned Magistrate. That the impugned order
is improper and perverse and is required to be set aside.
Learned(sic)
13. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed.
The impugned order dated 6.1.2024 passed below Exh.1 in
Criminal Inquiry No.280 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.
The learned Magistrate is directed to record the statements
of the witnesses and then after applying judicial mind to
the material placed before the Court, form the judgment
whether or not, there is sufficient ground to proceed.”
14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of the instant contempt petition with a prayer seeking
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 255
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
prosecution of the respondents and to convict and sentence them for
wilful disobedience and gross contempt of this Court’s order dated
8th December, 2023.
15. Notice of the contempt proceedings was issued to the respondents
on 10th January, 2024.
16. The High Court of Gujarat was subsequently impleaded in the matter
vide order dated 29th January, 2024.
17. Reply affidavits in response to the notice for contempt, have been
filed on behalf of the respondents arraigned in the contempt petition.
The petitioner has also filed separate rejoinder affidavits.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner: -
18. Mr. Iqbal Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
advanced the following pertinent submissions: -
18.1 That the order dated 8th December, 2023 passed by this Court
was explicit to the effect that the petitioner was to be released
on bail in event of his arrest. No liberty was ever granted by this
Court to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand
of the petitioner while he was under the protective umbrella of
the interim anticipatory bail order passed by this Court.
18.2 That the SLP seeking anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was
still pending consideration before this Court and thus, if at all,
the Investigating Officer desired to seek police custody remand
of the petitioner on the alleged ground of non-cooperation in
investigation, then the appropriate procedure would have been
to move an application before this Court to seek such liberty.
18.3 That the Investigating Officer had already accepted the bail
bonds of the petitioner on 11th December, 2023 and hence,
there could not have been any occasion for grant of police
custody remand of the petitioner because such course of action
resulted into fresh arrest of the petitioner which is clearly in
teeth of the order passed by this Court.
18.4 That a pertinent objection was raised before the 6 th
ACJM(contemnor-respondent No. 7) that there was no scope
for granting police custody remand of the petitioner in view
of this Court’s order, but the 6th ACJM No. 6(contemnor-
256 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
respondent No. 7) totally glossed over the interim order passed
by this Court and granted 3 days’ police custody remand of
the petitioner by assigning a totally flimsy justification that
this Court had not precluded the Investigating Officer from
seeking police custody remand of the petitioner nor was the
Magistrate prohibited from exercising such power. In support
of the submission that there was no scope to remand the
petitioner to police custody, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by this
Court in the case of Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre v. State
of Maharashtra.1
18.5 He urged that in spite of the interim order of anticipatory bail
granted by this Court being in currency, the petitioner was not
released from custody even at the end of the police remand
period, and rather, he was compelled to file a regular bail
application under Section 437 CrPC to which the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor(APP) objected. However, the
application was allowed, and the bail bonds of the petitioner
were accepted, and he was released from custody on 18th
December, 2023 which aggravates the contemptuous acts of
the contemnor-respondent No. 7 because the petitioner was
kept in illegal custody for more than 48 hours.
As per learned senior counsel, it is a clear case of the petitioner
being kept in illegal custody for a period of 6 days in teeth of
the interim order granted by this Court and that too, during
pendency of the special leave petition.
18.6 He urged that the biased, pre-determined and prejudiced
bent of mind of the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No.7)
is fortified from the fact that when the petitioner made a
complaint regarding torture in police custody on being
produced before the Court at the end of the remand period,
the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No. 7) proceeded to
record a calculated finding that the accused-petitioner was not
having signs of injury by even going to the extent of personally
examining the feet of the petitioner which procedure was
purely within the domain of a Medical Expert.
1 [2010] 15 SCR 201 : (2011) 1 SCC 694
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 257
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
18.7 Over and above this, the private complaint filed by the
petitioner alleging torture in police custody was rejected in
an arbitrary and high-handed fashion even without recording
the statements of the complainant (petitioner herein) and the
witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC which is the
mandate of law.
The High Court of Gujarat, vide order dated 22nd February, 2024
while reversing the order passed by the 6th ACJM (contemnor-
respondent No.7) rejecting the complaint has taken note of
the fact that learned Magistrate committed grave legal error in
ignoring the provisions of CrPC while rejecting the complaint
filed by the petitioner.
18.8 That the petitioner after being released from custody
lodged a prompt complaint to the Commissioner of Police,
Surat (contemnor-respondent No.2) on 20th December, 2023
with a pertinent prayer to preserve the CCTV footage of Vesu
Police Station. However, no action was forthcoming on the
said complaint, and it is only after this Court took cognizance
of the contempt proceedings and issued notice that an inquiry
was initiated in this regard.
18.9 That the Commissioner of Police, Surat (contemnor-
respondent No. 2) has admitted in his affidavit that CCTV
cameras installed at Vesu Police Station by a private agency
were not functional and this fact was brought to notice of Mr.
R.Y. Raval, Police Inspector (contemnor-respondent No. 4) by
the PSO in charge on 21st December, 2023. He contended that
the clear omission and negligence on part of the concerned
police officials in not ensuring the functioning of the CCTV
cameras is in sheer disobedience of the mandate of this
Court’s judgment in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v.
Baljit Singh and Another.2
18.10 That as per the reply affidavit filed by the Commissioner
of Police, Surat(contemnor-respondent No. 2), the FSL
examination carried out on the internal storage(hard disk)
and the DVR reveals that the CCTV footage of Vesu Police
2 [2020] 13 SCR 770 : (2021) 1 SCC 184
258 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Station from 13th December, 2023 to 16th December, 2023
was not found in hard disk which clearly establishes that the
police officials had tampered with the DVR and deleted the
data saved between 13th December, 2023 to 16th December,
2023, in order to destroy the evidence of custodial violence
committed upon the petitioner.
18.11 That the very fact, that the police officials registered the FIR
on the basis of complaint filed by complainant(contemnor-
respondent No. 6), being FIR No. 11210068230266 for
allegations which ex facie disclose a civil dispute plain and
simple, reflects their mala fide and biased approach.
On these grounds, the learned senior counsel implored the Court to
prosecute and suitably punish the respondents while holding them
guilty of wilful disobedience/gross contempt of this Court’s order
dated 8th December, 2023. He also prayed that the interim protection
granted to the petitioner vide order dated 8th December, 2023 passed
in SLP(Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023 may be made absolute.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
19. Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the freshly
impleaded respondent, the High Court of Gujarat (respondent No. 8)
advanced the following submissions: -
19.1 The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Investigating Officer could not have sought remand of the
petitioner is misplaced since, the judgment relied upon by the
petitioner i.e. Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) wherein,
it was held that tenure of anticipatory bail order cannot be
limited has been explicitly overruled by a larger Bench of
this Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of
Delhi).3 He placed reliance on the following paras from the
above judgment in support of this contention:-
“92.6- An order of anticipatory bail should not be
“blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the
accused to commit further offences and claim relief of
indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined
to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of
3 [2020] 2 SCR 1 : (2020) 5 SCC 1
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 259
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It
cannot operate in respect of a future incident that
involves commission of an offence.
92.7- An order of anticipatory bail does not in any
manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the
police or investigating agency, to investigate into
the charges against the person who seeks and is
granted pre-arrest bail.”
19.2 He submitted that the Courts in Gujarat based on the view
taken by the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in the
case of Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat,4
have been following a consistent practice of incorporating
a condition in the orders granting anticipatory bail that the
Investigating Officer would be entitled to seek police custody
remand of the accused as and when required. In Sunilbhai
Sudhirbhai Kothari(surpa), the reference was made to the
Division Bench to answer the following question of law: -
“Whether the Investigating Agency has power to
get police custody under Section 167 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when an accused is
already granted bail under the provision of Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
The Division Bench answered the reference in affirmative and thus,
there was no impediment for the Investigating Officer to have sought
police custody remand of the petitioner and that the learned Magistrate
was also acting well within the jurisdiction conferred upon her by
CrPC while granting police remand of the petitioner.
20. The learned counsel representing the contemnor-respondent
Nos. 2 to 7 submitted in cohesion that all the contemnors have
tendered unconditional apology in their reply affidavits for the
alleged contumacious acts. They urged that the contemnors had
no intention whatsoever to disobey or disregard this Court’s order
dated 8th December, 2023 and the infraction, if any, in this regard is
purely unintentional and thus, a lenient view may be taken and the
contempt notices may be discharged.
4 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14451
260 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG appearing on behalf of Commissioner of
Police, Surat(contemnor-respondent No. 2) advanced the following
submissions: -
21.1 That respondent No. 2 has no direct role in the contempt
proceedings and thus the contempt notice issued to him may
be discharged.
21.2 That Commissioner of Police(contemnor-respondent No. 2)
has tendered an unconditional apology for any of the alleged
action/omission which may have resulted in contempt of this
Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023.
21.3 That Vesu Police Station was a newly established police station
and thus, CCTV cameras installed in the police station were
not properly functional.
21.4 That the DVR and hard disks of the CCTV cameras installed
in the police station were forwarded for analysis to the FSL,
from where a report has been received that there was some
technical defect in the DVR and that the video footage from
13th December, 2023 to 16th December, 2023 could not be
preserved therein. The fact regarding the technical defect in the
DVR was not brought to the knowledge of the Commissioner
of Police (contemnor-respondent No.2) and hence, he cannot
be held guilty of wilful negligence in discharge of duties.
21.5 That Commissioner of Police (contemnor-respondent
No. 2) has already initiated departmental proceedings against
the erring police officials. The Police Inspector/Investigating
Officer (contemnor-respondent No. 4) and Police Constable
(contemnor-respondent No. 5) have been placed under
suspension.
He thus implored the Court to discharge the contempt notice issued
to the Commissioner of Police, Surat(contemnor-respondent No.2).
22. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Surat(contemnor-respondent No. 3)
advanced the following submissions: -
22.1 That the said contemnor has tendered an unconditional
apology for any act or omission which may have contributed
to the non-compliance/contempt of this Court’s order dated 8th
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 261
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
December, 2003. Learned ASG reiterated the averments made
in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the officer and urged
that he was, in no manner, connected with the investigation
of the subject FIR and thus he cannot be held responsible
for the contumacious acts. She fervently contended that the
contemnor-respondent No. 3 had no role to play either in the
investigation of the case or the custodial torture allegedly
meted out to the petitioner during the period of police custody.
She also urged that no injuries were found on the person of
the petitioner as per the medical report.
22.2 Regarding the issue of the non-functioning of the CCTV
cameras in the Vesu Police Station, she submitted that the
CCTV cameras had been installed some time back and were
functional but there was some problem with the DVR storage
not just during the 3 days of custodial period of the petitioner
but was persisting since November, 2023. On these grounds,
Ms. Bhati, learned ASG implored the Court to accept the
unconditional apology filed on behalf of contemnor-respondent
No.3 and discharge the contempt notice issued to him.
23. Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri
R.Y. Raval, Police Inspector(contemnor-respondent No. 4) urged
that the officer had no intention whatsoever to disregard or wilfully
disobey this Court’s order. He advanced the following submissions: -
23.1 At the outset, Investigating Officer (contemnor-respondent
No. 4) in his reply affidavit has tendered an unconditional
apology for any contumacious act/conduct arising of inadvertent
action/omission attributed to him in the contempt proceedings.
23.2 That when the petitioner appeared at the police station with the
order of this Court dated 8th December, 2023, he was immediately
released on bail by accepting his bail bonds. However, the
petitioner gave evasive replies upon being interrogated and
was totally non-cooperative in the process of investigation and
thus, the Investigating Officer, contemnor- respondent No. 4
felt a genuine requirement to seek police custody remand of
the petitioner to effect discovery of incriminating evidence.
23.3 That there prevails a long-standing practice being followed by
all the Courts in the State of Gujarat whereby the Investigating
Officer is given liberty to seek police custody remand in
262 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
orders granting anticipatory bail to the accused. Swayed by
this misconception based on the practice consistently being
followed in the State, the Inspector bona fide moved the
application for police custody remand of the petitioner herein.
23.4 That even the learned Magistrate misconstrued this Court’s
order and granted police custody remand of the petitioner
and hence, the Inspector cannot be faulted and punished for
contempt just for moving the remand application.
23.5 That no maltreatment was ever meted out to the petitioner
during the period of police custody which fact is borne out
from the observations made in the proceedings recorded by
the learned Magistrate on 16th December, 2023.
23.6 That the Police Inspector (contemnor-respondent No.4)
had joined Vesu Police Station on 5th October, 2023 and
thus, the allegation that he was hands in glove with the
complainant(contemnor-respondent No. 6) is totally misplaced.
23.7 That contemnor-respondent No.4 was sincerely discharging his
official duties while investigating the FIR No. 11210068230266
dated 21st July, 2023 wherein, the petitioner was alleged
to have cheated the complainant of a huge sum of money
running into more than Rs. 1.65 crores and thus, he cannot
be attributed the motive of colluding with the complainant.
23.8 That the cheques given by the complainant to the accused-
petitioner were illegally retained and, the recovery thereof was
imperative for fair investigation of the case and therefore, the
Police Inspector had sought police custody remand of the
petitioner herein in an absolutely bona fide and unbiased
manner.
23.9 That the petitioner’s claim of being tortured during the period
of police custody is yet to be adjudicated in the complaint
filed by the petitioner which is pending enquiry.
23.10 In addition to above, learned counsel submitted that
contemnor-respondent No.4 is already facing departmental
proceedings in relation to these very allegations and hence,
these contempt proceedings would tantamount to double
jeopardy.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 263
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
On strength of the above submissions, learned counsel implored
the Court to take a sympathetic view and discharge the contempt
notice issued to contemnor-respondent No. 4.
24. Learned senior counsel, Mr. D.N. Ray, representing 6th ACJM No.6
(contemnor-respondent No. 7), at the outset, submitted that the
judicial officer is having an impeccable service record. She had no
intention whatsoever of committing wilful or intentional disobedience
of this Court’s order and that the judicial officer has expressed
unconditional and unqualified apology for the acts done in discharge
of judicial functions which are wrongly branded as contumacious by
the petitioner. He advanced the following submissions: -
24.1 On perusing the remand application filed by the Investigating
Officer, the contemnor-respondent No.7 inculcated a
reasonable belief that the petitioner was not cooperating with
the investigation in terms of the order passed by this Court.
24.2 She was also guided by the long prevailing practice being
followed in the State of Gujarat wherein, the Courts, while
granting anticipatory bail, incorporate a condition that in case
the accused in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail has
been passed does not cooperate in investigation then, the
concerned Magistrate would be empowered to direct police
custody remand of such accused.
24.3 He submitted that it is purely based on this long-standing
practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat that 6th ACJM
(contemnor-respondent No. 7), in bona fide discharge of
her judicial functions allowed the application filed by the
Investigating Officer and remanded the petitioner to three days’
police custody. He urged that at the end of the remand period,
the petitioner voluntarily filed an application under Section 437
CrPC seeking bail, which was routed through the Registry
of the Court and that is why the Magistrate, was left with
no other option but to pass an order on the said application
requiring the accused petitioner to furnish bail bonds in lieu
of release on bail.
However, on a pertinent query being put, Mr. Ray, was not in a
position to dispute the fact that the petitioner herein was released
from custody after a delay of nearly 48 hours from the date i.e. 16th
264 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
December, 2023, the period when the police custody remand had
come to an end.
24.4 Regarding the proceedings taken on the complaint of custodial
violence made by the petitioner, learned counsel urged that
contemnor-respondent No. 7 was acting well within her
jurisdiction by virtue of provisions contained in CrPC when she
questioned the petitioner and also conducted preliminary body
examination so as to take note of the injuries, if any, suffered
by him owing to the alleged custodial violence. These facts
were recorded in the court order sheet as per the observations
made during the course of judicial proceedings. The formal
complaint was dismissed by the contemnor while exercising
judicial discretion conferred upon a Magistrate by virtue of
Section 203 CrPC. The order rejecting the complaint has
already been set aside by the High Court and since the said
complaint is sub judice, any expression by this Court on this
issue may have an adverse reflection on the service record
of the contemnor.
24.5 Mr. Ray reiterated that 6 th ACJM (contemnor-respondent
No. 7) was deluded by the prevailing practice referred to supra
while passing the order of police custody remand. She had no
intention whatsoever to flout or disregard the order passed by
this Court and that she tenders unconditional apology for any
act or omission committed by her which may be construed to
be in disregard to the order dated 8th December, 2023.
On these submissions, he implored the Court to condone the
unintentional act of the contemnor-respondent No.7 and to discharge
the contempt notice issued to her.
25. By way of additional submissions, Shri S.V. Raju, learned ASG
appearing on behalf of Kamal Dayani, Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Gujarat (contemnor-respondent No. 1) and Shri R.
Basant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High
Court of Gujarat (respondent No. 8) tried to persuade the Court that
no contempt was committed by any of the contemnors, by harping
upon the prevailing practice in the State of Gujarat that the Courts,
be it the Sessions Court or the High Court while passing pre-arrest
bail orders under Section 438 CrPC, invariably incorporate a clause
to the effect that in case the Investigating Officer wants to seek
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 265
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
police custody of the accused, an application in this regard may be
filed before the concerned Magistrate who would be empowered to
direct that the accused in whose favour the anticipatory bail order
is passed, could be detained in police custody under valid order of
the concerned Magistrate. Learned counsels thus, urged that the
contemnors-respondent Nos. 1 and 8 who were acting under this
misconception based on a long-standing practice formed by virtue
of the Division Bench judgment in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari
(supra) may not be castigated as having acted in wilful disobedience
of this Court’s order and therefore, the contempt notices may be
discharged while accepting the unconditional apology tendered on
behalf of them.
26. So far as contemnor-respondent Nos. 1 and 6 are concerned, they
have neither filed any affidavits nor any significant contest was
made on behalf of these contemnors-respondents to the contempt
proceedings presumably because the thrust of the petitioner’s
allegations regarding non-compliance/flouting of this Court’s order
is directed against the other respondents.
27. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.
Discussion: -
28. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, at the outset,
we may note that a bare perusal of the order under contempt dated
8th December, 2023 would leave no room for doubt that the interim
protection of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the petitioner
was absolute, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the
Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023 which is still pending
consideration before this Court. The language of the order was clear
and unambiguous, hence, none of the contemnors-respondents
could have entertained any doubt in their minds nor was there any
scope for the interpretation that the petitioner could be remanded
to police custody during the currency of the interim order dated 8th
December, 2023.
29. Shri Ajay Kumar Tomar, Commissioner of Police, Surat (contemnor-
respondent No. 2) had no role to play in the investigation or the
proceedings pertaining to the remand of the petitioner and thus,
prima facie, he cannot be held responsible for the contumacious
266 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
acts. His role is limited to the aspect of non-functionality of the CCTV
cameras, and we would be dealing with this aspect later.
The contempt notice issued to contemnor-respondent No.2 is thus,
discharged.
30. Shri Vijaysinh Gurjar, contemnor-respondent No. 3 being the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Surat has sworn an affidavit
tendering unconditional apology for any of the acts/omissions which
may have led to the order of this Court being flouted.
31. We may note that the reply affidavit of this Officer (contemnor-
respondent No.3) is relevant only in context of non-functioning of
the CCTV cameras and the custodial torture allegedly meted out
to the petitioner during police custody for the period between 13th
December, 2023 and 16th December, 2023, wherein it is alleged that
the petitioner was beaten in the presence of the said contemnor.
The following averments are made in the reply affidavit filed by
contemnor-respondent No. 3:-
31.1 At para 6 of the reply affidavit, it has been stated that the
respondent was busy in the preparation and deployment
on account of visit of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India in
Surat on 17th December, 2023. In connection with the said
preparations, he had briefly visited Vesu Police Station on
13th December, 2023. He has denied having any role to play
in the investigation of the FIR lodged against the petitioner.
The issue regarding custodial violence allegedly meted out to the
petitioner is subject matter of departmental proceedings and is also
sub judice in proceedings of the criminal complaint filed by the
petitioner. Thus, it is neither necessary nor justified to make any
observation thereupon because the said aspect has no live link to
the contempt proceedings.
31.2 Regarding the aspect of non-functioning of CCTV cameras
installed at Vesu Police Station and storage thereof, the
contemnor-respondent No. 3 has come out with the following
details in para 7 of the reply affidavit:-
7. “That in so far as the CCTV footage of the
Vesu Police Station for the period 13.12.2023 to
16.12.2023 is concerned, it is humbly that my office
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 267
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
has received the FSL Report dated 25.01.2024 sent
by the Directorate of Forensic Science, Gujarat
State, Gandhinagar, regarding the recording of the
CCTV cameras installed at the Vesu Police Station,
which has inter-alia opined that the DVR and the
Hard disc of the CCTV cameras were not physically
damaged and were found in working condition and
that One lakh four thousand seven hundred ninety-
nine (1,04,799) CCTV video footages and clips were
found present in the Hard disk, which occupied the
entire space of the hard disk i.e. 1.81 TB/1.81 T. The
footages shows the time period from 09.01.2000 to
13.01.2000, 29.05.2020 to 20.07.2020, 23.10.2023 to
28.11.2023 and 12.01.2024 to 12.01.2024. However,
“the CCTV video footage(s)/clip(S) having date stamp
i.e. 13.12.2023 to 16.12.2023 were not found in the
Hard disk Exh-H1 of the DVR Exh-1”.
32. Going by the above averments, it is clear that the mandate to install
and ensure functionality of CCTV cameras in all police stations
by virtue of this Court’s judgment in the case of Paramvir Singh
Saini(supra) has not been complied in letter and spirit by the
concerned police officials. Even if we accept the fact that CCTV
cameras were installed in some parts of Vesu Police Station and it
is the DVR which was not functional, the fact remains that no CCTV
camera was installed in the interrogation room of the police station
which is an admitted position as evident from the record. However, we
feel that these shortcomings should be dealt with at the departmental
level rather than being made subject of these contempt proceedings.
The contempt notice issued to contemnor-respondent No.3 is thus,
discharged.
33. The language of the remand application filed by the Investigating
Officer, Shri R.Y. Raval(contemnor-respondent No.4) would be
relevant for dealing with his case and hence, the same is reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“To
5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate,
New Court Building, Surat City
268 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SUB TO ALLOW REMAND FOR DAYS-7 OF ACCUSED
PERSON
I, R.Y.Rawal, I/c Police Inspector Vesu Police Station Surat
City respectfully submitting that,
On 21/07/2023 Complainant Abhishek Vinodkumar
Goswami Aged: 28 years Occupation: Business of Real
Estate residing at C/405, Surya Palace, City Light, Surat
City Mobile No 9879215044 preferred complaint before
Vesu Police Station Part A 11210068230266/2023 for
offence committed under Section 420,120(B) of Indian
Penal Code against Accused persons (1) Partners of
Shrestha Group Developers Bhavinbhai Durhabbhai
Patel Resident of Navi Colony Sarthana Village Surat
Mobile No 9925112073 (2) Pradip Tamakuwala Mobile No
9227906150 (3) Vasant Patel (4) Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai
Shah Mobile No 9825038475 (5) Sumit Goenka Mobile
No 7710827133 (6) Rajsing Mobile No 6353949599 (7)
Omkarsing Mobile No 9106115519 and the facts of the
compliant are that,
On 28/01/2023 at around 1600 hrs Accused person no 4
and 5 of the matter shown shop no 204, 301, 302, 303, 304,
305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 404, 405, 407, 408, 409 in total
15 shops situated at Vesu VIP Road, Solarium Business
Center and accused no 4 Tushar Shah himself informed
that he was the builder and assured that the project was
his, the Complainant and witness Akhil Ramanuj Bhattar
were ready to buy 15 shops and paid Rs. 1,65,00,000/-
(in words One Crore Five Sixty Lakh only) was paid to
accused no. 4 and cheque of Rs. 54,00,000/-(in words
Rupees Fifty four lakhs only) was also paid, after which
a diary of full payment was also produced in presence of
accused no. 5, 6, 7 and even after frequently informing
all the accused of this matter neither the Deed of shops
executed nor returning the money and committed the
offence by making pre-planned criminal conspiracy by
accused person against complainant and witness.
For said matter accused in the above offence, Tushar
Rajinikanth Shah, aged: 43 years Occupation: Business
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 269
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Residing at Flat No. E/902, Florence Building, Opposite
Rajhans Cinema, VIP Road, Vesu Suraj City having Mobile
No 9825038475 was arrested on 11/12/2023 at 2100 hrs
and on 08/12/2023 the accused allowed anticipatory bail
application vide order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India Special in the matter of Leave Application No.
14489/2023 so that the accused in this matter released
on bail on furnishing suitable sureties based on the order
of the Supreme Court of India and they While obtaining
a detailed statement, they are concealing the truth during
the investigation proceedings so that the accused should
be remanded in police custody for day-07 to investigate
the offence.
GROUNDS FOR REMAND
1. During course of investigations proceeding of this
matter, on prima facie evidence found against the
accused Tusharbhai Shah in which the complainant
himself stated to be the builder of said Builder which
is the fact that the present accused had prima facie
intention with the accused in a pre-planned manner
with the other accused in this matter. It was found
that there is disloyalty [betrayal]of the complainant
so that it is necessary to investigate the entire pre-
planned conspiracy with the other accused so that the
present accused is required to be in police custody.
2. Accused person of this matter Tushar Shah issued
cheques to the complainant of Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Kumbhariya Cheque No. (1) 000394 dated
31/01/2023 signed in the name of authorized signatory
of Branch, Surat for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and (2)
000395 dated 31/01/2023 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(3) 000396 dated 31/01/23 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(4)
000397 dated 31/01/2023 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (5)
000398 31/01/2023 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(6) 000022
14/02/2023 a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (7) 000021
10/02/2023 a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (8) 000023
dated 18/02/2023 a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (9) 00024
dated 20/02/23 a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- and with
270 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
regard to said cheques, Accused have not disclosed
any material fact that they are not cooperating with
the investigation proceedings regarding the places
where the Cheques are kept and also all the above
Cheques are important circumstantial evidences
which have to be grabbed [seized] for the purpose
of investigation proceedings so the presence of the
accused in the police custody is required.
3. The complainant and the witness paid a sum of Rs.
1,65,00,000/- (in words Rupees One Crore Sixty
Lakh only) to the accused in various installments
which they have not admitted to have taken even in
cash and what was the use of such a huge amount.
Investigation proceedings are to be conducted so that
the presence of the accused in the police custody
is required.
4. Against the accused of this matter, Umra Police
Station First Criminal Register No. 62/2019 for
offence committed u/s 447, 448, 451, 427, 114 of
Indian Penal Code registered so that the accused
has a criminal history apart from this how many other
offences have they committed while during course
of interrogation, they are passing the time by giving
wayward replies and many important information
from this inquiry may come out during the course of
investigation proceedings which cannot be obtained
without presence during their investigation so the
police custody of accused person is essential.
5. Ever since the offence was filed against the accused
in this matter, he is on the run till date and the other
co-accused in this matter are hiding information about
them, which also needs to be investigated so that
the police custody of accused person is essentially
required.
Considering the above grounds, we request to approve
the police custody remand of the accused on Day-07. A
copy of the diary is enclosed herewith which please note
by Your Honor.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 271
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
13/12/2023 R.Y Raval
Police Inspector
I/c Vesu Police Station
Surat City”
34. At para No. 3 of the remand application, the Investigating
Officer(contemnor-respondent No.4) has noted that the accused-
petitioner did not admit having taken cash to the tune of Rs. 1.65
crores which the complainant claims to have paid to the accused-
petitioner in various instalments. Para No. 4 of the application reads
that Crime No. 62/2019 had been registered against the accused at
P.S. Umra for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 451,
427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it was imputed that
the accused had a criminal history and that he was giving evasive
replies to the questions being put to him. However, it is pertinent
to note that the Investigating Officer never made any effort to re-
summon the accused for investigation even for a single time after
12th December, 2023 when abruptly a notice to appear before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was given to the accused for
seeking his police remand. The language of the notice has been
reproduced at para 5 (supra) and it does not give a whisper of
indication that the accused was not cooperating in the investigation.
35. We are of the firm opinion that non-cooperation by the accused
is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is
another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being
interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would
the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated
with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by
the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and
cannot even form a part of the record.
36. This Court vide order dated 12th July, 2024 passed in Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10536/2023 titled as ‘Sanuj
Bansal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.’ has held that such
confessions recorded in the interrogation notes of the accused cannot
form part of the charge sheet.
37. Looking at the allegations in the FIR, we are of the firm view that
the Investigating Officer should have, at the first instance, put the
complainant to serious questioning and strict proof because while
alleging in FIR that he had given a huge sum of Rs. 1.65 crores
272 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to the accused-petitioner, the complainant (contemnor-respondent
No. 6) himself had acted in gross contravention of the provisions of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (for short ‘PMLA’). By blindly placing reliance on the
unverified allegations of the complainant based on a huge cash
transaction and registering the FIR without even making a basic
enquiry on this vital aspect, the police officials to be specific, the
Investigating Officer (contemnor-respondent No. 4) clearly colluded
with the complainant (contemnor-respondent No. 6) by trying to give
the civil dispute, based on allegation of breach of oral agreement,
the colour of a crime.
38. The complainant(contemnor-respondent No. 6) categorically stated
in the FIR that it was he who had given cheques of about Rs. 54
lakhs to the petitioner and it was agreed that on clearance of the
cheques, the accused-petitioner would execute the registered sale
deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the complainant.
In clear contradiction to this allegation of the complainant, the
Investigating Officer at para No. 2 of the remand application(supra)
noted that the cheques of Kotak Mahindra Bank had been signed
by accused-petitioner for being given to the complainant(contemnor-
respondent No. 6) and that he was not getting the same recovered.
The above statement made in the remand application seems to
be at sheer variance with the allegation set out in the FIR that
the cheques were given by the complainant to the petitioner i.e.,
Tusharbhai Shah and not vice versa. The assertion made in the
FIR, that the accused-petitioner was not lodging the cheques of
the complainant(contemnor-respondent No. 6) in his bank and was
holding on to the same was clearly a wishful allegation created
somehow or the other for framing the accused in a criminal case,
rather than resorting to civil proceedings. It is not even the stated
case of the complainant that before lodging the FIR, he had asked
the accused-petitioner to return the cheques to him.
39. We may also state, had the accused-petitioner suffered an information
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which gave rise
to a reasonable belief that such information could lead to discovery
of an incriminating fact, perhaps the remand application could have
been justified to some extent. However, that is not the situation in
the case at hand.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 273
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
40. The narration made in the remand application that the Investigating
Officer wanted to find out about the criminal antecedents of the
accused is also fanciful on the face of it. With the digitisation of
the records, the criminal antecedents/records of accused would
be readily available on CCTNS i.e., Crime and Criminal Tracking
Network System and thus, the Investigating Officer could not have
sought police custody remand of the accused in order to find out
his criminal antecedents.
41. Apparently thus, the Investigating Officer (contemnor-respondent No.
4), while filing the remand application, made blatant misinterpretations
and procured the police custody of the accused-petitioner who
was under the protective umbrella of this Court’s order dated 8th
December, 2023.
42. If at all, by any stretch of imagination, the Investigating Officer felt
genuine and bona fide requirement to seek police custody remand
of the petitioner, then the proper course of action would have been
to move this Court for seeking appropriate directions rather than
moving the Magistrate by way of the remand application, which was
tainted, malicious and a contemptuous act on the face of the record.
43. Now, we shall take up the case of the contemnor-respondent No. 7
being the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat who passed
the order dated 13th December, 2023 granting police custody remand
of the petitioner. The contemnor has made the following averments
in her reply affidavit: -
43.1 At para No. 2 of the reply affidavit, the officer has offered
unconditional apology for what has been termed to be a bona
fide mistake in interpretation of the order of this Court.
43.2 In para No. 3 of the reply affidavit, the contemnor-respondent
No. 7 has emphatically stated that this Court had granted
ad-interim relief to the petitioner subject to the condition of
cooperating with the Investigating Agency and being the Court
of 6th ACJM, the officer was vested with the jurisdiction under
Section 167 CrPC to grant police custody remand of the
accused. The officer has projected in the reply affidavit that by
granting police remand of the accused-petitioner, she rather
ensured the compliance of this Court’s order with bona fide
objective of ensuring that the investigation is carried out fairly.
274 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
43.3 At para No. 3.1 of the reply affidavit, the contemnor-respondent
No. 7 has sworn that upon receiving the remand application
from the Investigating Agency, alleging non-cooperation in the
investigation by the petitioner, she merely followed the practice
and procedure prevalent in the State of Gujarat, wherein the
Courts issue anticipatory bail orders with a direction to the
accused-petitioner to cooperate with investigation and upon
failure to do so, liberty is given to the Investigating Officer to
seek police remand. The contemnor-respondent No. 7 has
annexed certain orders of the High Court of Gujarat to buttress
this plea taken in the affidavit in reply to the contempt notice.
43.4 That the petitioner was served with the notice directing him to
remain present before the Court of 6th ACJM for the purpose
of seeking his police remand. This notice was at the behest
of the Investigating Officer and was routed through the
Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP). The Investigating Officer
sought 7 days remand of the petitioner on the ground that
he was not cooperating with the investigation as directed by
this Court. The petitioner, neither filed any written protest
nor any affidavit to oppose the remand application. He also
did not make an affirmative statement of having cooperated
with the Investigating Agency by providing information and
documents in his possession. An emphatic denial has been
given by the contemnor-respondent No. 7 to the plea of the
petitioner that the order granting police remand was passed
without providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
or his Advocate.
43.5 At para No. 5.3 of the reply affidavit, the contemnor-respondent
No. 7 has reiterated that this Court vide order dated 8 th
December, 2023, granted ad-interim relief in favour of the
petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to cooperate with
the investigation and thus, order of remand was passed
considering the purport of para 5 of the order (supra) dated
8th December, 2023.
43.6 At para No. 5.4 of the reply affidavit, contemnor-respondent
No. 7 has stated that as the order of this Court was not being
complied with by the petitioner and since investigation was
permitted to be continued, the contemnor was under a bona
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 275
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
fide belief of having the power to hear and allow the remand
application. It is in the course of exercise of judicial discretion
conferred on the officer by law, that the order dated 13th
December, 2023 came to be passed.
43.7 The complaint of ill-treatment made by the petitioner was
dealt with by the contemnor-respondent No. 7 by following
the procedure prescribed in para 14 of the Criminal Manual,
Gujarat High Court. Since the petitioner made a complaint
of ill-treatment by police in presence of his Advocates, the
contemnor-respondent No.7 proceeded to make physical
observation of the petitioner wherein no external injury or mark
of violence was found on his body which fact was recorded in
the statement of the petitioner which was also signed by him.
43.8 At para No. 7 of the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner
filed a bail application under Section 437 CrPC without there
being any order taking him in judicial custody. The said
application was submitted before the Registry of the Court
and was registered in the Central Filing System and thereafter,
placed before the Court. The Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP)
objected to the prayer for bail, but the contemnor-respondent
No. 7 considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the ad-interim relief granted to the petitioner by this Court,
directed his release on bail.
43.9 At para No. 8 of the reply affidavit, it has been stated that 8th
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat passed an order to
keep the complaint filed by the petitioner alleging ill-treatment
in police custody for verification, but since the petitioner had
admitted that his complaint of custodial violence had already
been recorded by the contemnor-respondent No.7 on the very
date of the completion of the remand period, i.e., 16th December,
2023, she thought it fit to pass a detailed order dismissing
the complaint on 6th January, 2024 by exercising jurisdiction
under Section 203 CrPC. The contemnor-respondent No. 7
has pleaded that to her knowledge, the petitioner has not
challenged the said judicial order.
At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the contemnor-
respondent No. 7 has assigned no reasons in the reply affidavit
as to how the order dated 21st December, 2023 passed by the
276 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
predecessor, i.e., 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directing
that the complaint should be placed for verification which would
mean recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC
could have been reviewed by her. Be that as it may, the order dated
6th January, 2024 passed by the contemnor-respondent No. 7 has
already been set aside by the High Court of Gujarat by exercising
revisional jurisdiction vide order dated 22nd December, 2024 passed
in R/Criminal Revision Application No. 273 of 2024.
43.10 At para Nos. 10 and 10.1 of the reply affidavit, it has been
pleaded that the contemnor-respondent has served the
judiciary honestly, sincerely and with total commitment since
2010 and that she continues to discharge her duties within
the four corners of law. She had bona fide misinterpreted the
order of this Court and her sole intention was to secure the
interest of justice and hence, the acts alleged should not be
termed to be wilful and deliberate disobedience of this Court’s
order dated 8th December, 2023 as alleged by the petitioner.
44. The contemnor-respondent No. 7 has placed emphatic reliance on
the following lines from this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023: -
“5. However, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with
the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer as
and when directed to do so.”
It was contended on her behalf that by directing the petitioner to
cooperate with the investigation, this Court had given liberty to the
Investigating Officer to seek his police custody, in case, he did not
cooperate with the investigation. She tried to make out a case that
by passing the order granting police custody remand of the petitioner,
she rather ensured the compliance of the above direction issued by
this Court.
45. The 6th ACJM (contemnor-respondent No.7) has laid much stress in
her affidavit upon the fact that the Investigating Officer had noted in
his application that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating with the
investigation. We fail to comprehend as to what could be construed to
be cooperation in a criminal case based on allegations which prima
facie appear to be in relation to a civil dispute. The transaction inter
se between the parties pertained to sale and purchase of property.
However, there was no written agreement for documenting the
alleged sale transaction. Undisputedly, the accused-petitioner had
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 277
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
appeared before the Investigating Officer on 11th December, 2023
with the copy of the order under contempt, immediately upon being
summoned, at the police station. Thus, there was neither bona fide
nor genuine need for grant of police custody of the petitioner.
46. The contemnor-respondent No. 7 in her reply affidavit has tried to
explain that the order granting police custody was passed on the
basis of a perception arising from the practice being followed in
the State of Gujarat based on the Division Bench judgment of the
High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari
(supra). The said explanation is neither convincing nor tenable in
view of the fact that it is not a case wherein a Court in Gujarat
had passed an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC
which was vague or open to different interpretations or contained a
stipulation that the Investigating Officer could seek police remand of
the accused. The order under contempt dated 8th December, 2023
was passed by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India wherein there was no such
stipulation that the accused could be remanded to police custody.
The approach of contemnor-respondent No. 7 in first granting police
custody of the petitioner on a clearly frivolous and mala fide remand
application filed by Investigating Officer (contemnor-respondent No.
4), and in trying to justify the same in her reply affidavit, that it was
based on so called prevalent practice in the State of Gujarat cannot
be countenanced. It is noteworthy that despite the period of police
custody remand having come to an end on 16th December, 2023, the
accused petitioner was further detained till 18th December, 2023 on
which date, he was released on bail upon furnishing fresh bail bonds,
which is clearly in teeth of this Court’s order dated 8th December,
2023. The contemnor-respondent No. 7 has clearly stated in the reply
affidavit that no order was passed remanding the accused-petitioner
to judicial custody. In this background, detention of the accused till
18th December, 2023 was absolutely unconstitutional and contrary to
the letter and spirit of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
This Court has placed the individual freedom and right to liberty at
the highest pedestal in numerous decisions. Reference in this regard
may be to the decision of this Court in the case of Rekha v. State
of T.N.,5 wherein it was held as under:-
5 [2011] 4 SCR 740 : (2011) 5 SCC 244
278 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“14. Article 21 is the most important of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Liberty of
a citizen is a most important right won by our forefathers
after long, historical and arduous struggles. Our Founding
Fathers realised its value because they had seen during
the freedom struggle civil liberties of our countrymen being
trampled upon by foreigners, and that is why they were
determined that the right to individual liberty would be
placed on the highest pedestal along with the right to
life as the basic right of the people of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
47. If the order granting police custody remand was passed bona fide
based on some misconception, then, the contemnor-respondent
No. 7 should have ensured that the accused-petitioner be released
from custody immediately at the end of the period of police custody
remand without imposing any further conditions and without any
delay. The special leave petition filed on behalf of the petitioner had
not been finally decided and was still pending adjudication, when
the remand application was entertained and hence, there was no
occasion for the 6th ACJM (contemnor-respondent No. 7) to have
proceeded to interpret this Court’s order in a fanciful manner and
that too while acting on a tainted remand application filed by the
Investigating Officer.
48. Criminal jurisprudence requires that before exercising the power to
grant police custody remand, the Courts must apply judicial mind to
the facts of the case so as to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether
the police custody remand of the accused is genuinely required. 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.
49. As discussed above, the FIR against the accused-petitioner was
pertaining to a dispute which prima facie appears to be of a civil
nature and hence, the learned Magistrate ought not to have toed
the line of the Investigating Officer while granting police custody
remand of the accused-petitioner.
50. As a matter of fact, the application seeking police custody remand
of the petitioner could not have been entertained without seeking
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 279
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
permission of this Court as observed in the case of Sushila
Agarwal(supra).
51. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh6 wherein,
it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while
opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial investigation is
required would not be sufficient. The State would have to show or
indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial investigation
of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
52. Moving further, it must be noted that at the end of the remand
period, the 6th ACJM (contemnor-respondent No. 7) entertained an
application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner under Section
437 CrPC and directed his release on bail on furnishing bail bonds.
Indisputably, the accused had already furnished bail bonds to the
Investigating Officer pursuant to his appearance on 11th December,
2023 and hence, the direction given by the contemnor-respondent
No. 7 in requiring the accused to furnish a fresh set of bail bonds for
his release from custody was improper and clearly contumacious.
The explanation sought to be offered regarding the misconception
that had played in the mind of contemnor-respondent No. 7 may
have been accepted, had the accused been released without
insisting for fresh bail and bonds. However, the fact that a formal
application was taken under Section 437 CrPC and only thereafter,
the accused-petitioner was released on bail is in clear defiance of
this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023. The period between
the culmination of the police custody remand and the release of the
accused-petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds i.e. from 16th December,
2023 to 18th December, 2023 is a grey area in which there was no
order authorising the custody of the petitioner and thus clearly the
petitioner was illegally detained for nearly 48 hours.
53. It is pertinent to note that the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner had taken a strong exception to the remand application
which fact is noted in the proceedings sheet dated 13th December,
2023. However, the contemnor-respondent No. 7 brushed aside the
said objection which according to us, was bound to be sustained
6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274
280 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
without any exception, since this Court’s order was unambiguous
and only possible interpretation was that the petitioner should be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest.
54. We, prima facie feel that the contemnor-respondent No. 7 seems
to have acted in defence of the police officials when she made a
note on the complaint of custodial violence made by the petitioner
on 16th December, 2023, that after personally examining the feet of
the accused, she did not find any injury thereupon. Law requires
that the moment the accused had made a complaint of torture in
police custody, it was incumbent upon the concerned Magistrate to
have got the accused subjected to medical examination as per the
mandate of Section 54 CrPC. The formal complaint lodged by the
petitioner herein was proceeded with by 8th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate who took cognizance thereof on 22nd December, 2023
and directed that the complaint be posted for verification. The only
permissible action as per law after cognizance had been taken
on a private complaint, would be to record the statements of the
complainant and his witnesses by taking recourse to the mandatory
procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. However,
in sheer disregard to the order dated 22nd December, 2023 passed
by 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the 6th ACJM (contemnor-
respondent No.7) dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner vide
order dated 6th January, 2024 which has been rightly reversed by the
High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 22nd February, 2024 passed
in R/Criminal Revision Application No. 273 of 2024. This conduct of
contemnor-respondent No. 7 gives a strong indication of her biased
approach in the matter.
55. The arguments advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for
the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat as well as
the High Court of Gujarat about the long-standing practice prevailing
in the State, that the Investigating Officer(s) are given liberty to
seek police custody remand of the accused after competent Court
has granted anticipatory bail does not appeal to us for a moment.
Such an interpretation does not appear to be in consonance with
the unambiguous position of law. The provisions of anticipatory bail
enumerated under Section 438 CrPC or the newly enacted Section
482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter being
referred to as ‘BNSS’), which has come into force with effect from 1st
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 281
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
July, 2024, do not contemplate any such liberty to the Investigating
Officer. However, the Court adjudicating an application for anticipatory
bail may, in a given case, restrict the tenure of anticipatory bail
in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sushila
Agarwal (supra) and may also impose suitable conditions in light
thereof. However, it does not stand to reason that as a matter of
course, the High Court or the Court of Sessions, as the case may
be, while exercising anticipatory bail jurisdiction, grants pre-arrest bail
to the accused and yet, invariably the Investigating Officer is given
blanket liberty to keep the accused in custody for prolonged periods
in a routine manner. This would virtually frustrate the very purpose
and intent behind the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused. The
relevant excerpts in this regard from the Constitution Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal (supra) are reproduced
below for the sake of ready reference: -
“85.3. Section 438 CrPC does not compel or oblige
courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time,
or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any
witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc.
While weighing and considering an application (for grant
of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature
of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his
influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with
evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood
of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.
The courts would be justified — and ought to impose
conditions spelt out in Section 437(3) CrPC [by virtue of
Section 438(2)]. The necessity to impose other restrictive
conditions, would have to be weighed on a case-by-case
basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the
State or the investigating agency. Such special or other
restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or
cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine
manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit
the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are
required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such
limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.
85.4-85.7.…..
282 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
85.8. It is open to the police or the investigating
agency to move the court concerned, which granted
anticipatory bail, in the first instance, for a direction
under Section 439(2) to arrest the accused, in the event
of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-
cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation
or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence
outcome of the investigation or trial, etc. The court,
in this context, is the court which grants anticipatory bail,
in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities.”
(emphasis supplied)
56. The ratio of the above judgment makes it clear that Section 438 CrPC
does not compel or oblige courts to impose conditions limiting relief
in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of
any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. The
necessity to impose restrictive conditions other than those spelt out
in Section 437(3) CrPC would have to be weighed on a case-by-case
basis and depending upon the materials produced by the State or
the Investigating Agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions
may be imposed if the factual context of the case warrants but should
not be imposed in a routine manner and the Court would have to
act with circumspection depending on the particular facts of each
case before endeavouring to impose such conditions.
57. This Court has time and again held that the discretion to grant pre-
arrest bail should be exercised with great degree of circumspection.
Reference in this regard may be made to P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement.7
58. Thus, the power to grant anticipatory bail is not to be exercised in
a routine manner and the Courts are expected to use this provision
with a great degree of circumspection. Once, a Court bearing in
mind the strict parameters applicable to grant of anticipatory bail
exercises such power, then in such a situation, giving a handle to the
Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand of the accused,
would virtually negate and frustrate the very purpose behind the order
7 [2019] 14 SCR 450 : (2019) 9 SCC 24
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 283
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
of anticipatory bail. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that
the practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat that the Courts while
dealing with the anticipatory bail application routinely impose the
restrictive condition whereby, the Investigating Officers are granted
blanket permission to seek police custody remand of the accused,
in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail is passed, is in direct
contravention to the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal (supra). The Division
Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sunilbhai
Sudhirbhai Kothari (supra) does not hold good in law as the same
runs contrary to the ratio of Sushila Agarwal (supra) and thus, the
same stands impliedly overruled.
Conclusion: -
59. Having considered the rival submissions and upon a threadbare
discussion of the material available on record, we conclude as below:-
59.1 Having considered the role attributed to contemnor-respondent
No. 2, the Commissioner of Police, Surat, we find that there
is not even a whisper of an allegation against the said officer
other than the aspect relating to the non-functioning of the
CCTV cameras at the Vesu Police Station. Thus, the said
respondent cannot be held responsible for the non-compliance/
contempt of this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023 and
hence, the contempt notice issued to the contemnor-respondent
No.2 i.e, Ajay Kumar Tomar, Commissioner of Police, Surat,
is discharged.
59.2 That contemnor-respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner, Surat,
is not directly responsible for non-compliance of this Court’s
order dated 8th December, 2023. However, his role in failing to
ensure proper installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras
in the police station can be made a subject matter of enquiry at
a departmental level, if so desired. Thus, the contempt notice
issued to contemnor-respondent No. 3, Vijaysinh Gurjar, Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Surat, is discharged.
59.3 That the Investigating Officer, contemnor-respondent No. 4,
Police Inspector acted in flagrant defiance and gross contempt
of this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023 by applying for
police custody remand of the petitioner herein. The portrayal
284 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
made by the Investigating Officer in the remand application
to claim that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating in
the investigation was totally cooked up and a clear attempt to
draw wool over the Court’s eyes. During subsistence of this
Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023, there was neither any
authority with the Investigating Officer to seek police custody
remand of the accused nor was the prayer for remand justified
in the backdrop of the fact that the FIR itself was lodged in
relation to a civil dispute which arose from an oral agreement
for sale of property. A clear misrepresentation was made in
the remand application wherein, the Investigating Officer
projected that the cheques issued by the accused-petitioner
had to be recovered. It is an admitted position as per the FIR,
that the cheques had been issued by the complainant to the
accused-petitioner and not vice versa. By failing to test the
truth of the complainant’s allegations regarding transmission
of huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 1.65 crores to the
accused, the Investigating Officer acted in sheer ignorance
to the mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the
provisions of PMLA. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer
(contemnor-respondent No. 4) had only made investigation
from the accused for a few hours on 12th December, 2023 and
immediately thereafter, the police custody remand application
came to be submitted. The notice for remand to the accused
on 12th December 2023 does not indicate that he had not
cooperated in the investigation.
We are, therefore, inclined to hold that there was not even a shred
of bona fide in the actions of the Investigating Officer (contemnor-
respondent No.4) while seeking police custody remand of the accused
on the purported ground of non-cooperation in investigation. 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 dated 8th December, 2023 and tantamounts to
contempt on the face of the record. Hence, we have no hesitation
in holding that while seeking for and procuring the police custody
remand of the accused in the teeth of the order dated 8th December,
2023, the Investigating Officer, R.Y. Raval, Police Inspector, Vesu
Police Station, Surat (contemnor-respondent No. 4) is guilty of gross
contempt.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 285
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
59.4 That the explanation offered by 6 th ACJM (contemnor-
respondent No.7), that the order dated 13th December, 2023
granting police custody remand of the petitioner was passed
in the bona fide exercise of jurisdiction, based on a genuine
misunderstanding of the legal position does not appeal to us.
In view of the findings recorded in preceding paras, 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 reason offered by her that she was acting under
a misconception owing to settled and prevailing practice in the
State of Gujarat, is clearly in disregard to the order passed by
this Court. The said plea does not hold water since the order
under contempt dated 8th December, 2023 allowed only one
interpretation i.e. the accused-petitioner had to be released
on bail in the event of arrest. The action of the contemnor-
respondent No.7 in granting police custody remand of the
petitioner and in failing to release him upon completion of the
aforesaid period is clearly in teeth of this Court’s order dated 8th
December, 2023 and tantamounts to contempt. 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.
60. Accordingly, the contempt notices issued to respondent
Nos. 2 i.e., Ajay Kumar Tomar, Commissioner of Police, Surat,
respondent No. 3 i.e., Vijaysinh Gurjar, Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Zone-4, Surat and respondent No. 6 i.e., Abhishek
Vinodkumar Goswami (complainant) stand discharged.
61. As a result of the above discussion, we hold R.Y. Raval, Police
Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat (contemnor-respondent
No.4) and Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, 6th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Surat (contemnor-respondent No.7) guilty
of having committed contempt of this Court’s order dated 8th
December, 2023.
SLP (Crl.) No(s). 14489 of 2023, 537 of 2024 and 1116 of 2024
62. The orders dated 8th December, 2023, 11th January, 2024 and 23rd
January, 2024 passed by this Court in SLP Nos. 14489 of 2023,
537 of 2024 and 1116 of 2024, respectively are made absolute
286 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and it is directed that the ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to the
petitioners shall enure till culmination of the proceedings from the
FIR No. 11210068230266 of 2023 dated 21st July, 2023.
63. The special leave petitions are accordingly disposed of.
64. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Contempt petition listed for next date,
SLPs disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Anticipatory bail"Sign in to search