Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah – Petitioner
Versus
Kamal Dayani and Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. of 2024 (D. No. 1106 of 2024), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 14489 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 537, 1116 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that orders granting anticipatory bail must be strictly followed, and any violation constitutes contempt of court, especially when it results in illegal detention (!) .
The order dated 8th December 2023 explicitly directed that the petitioner be released on bail in case of arrest, and did not grant any liberty to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand during the interim bail period (!) (!) .
The petitioner appeared before the police with the order and was arrested and released on bail on the same day, complying with the court’s order. However, subsequently, notices were served requiring the petitioner to appear for investigation and remand proceedings, which were conducted despite the court’s protective order (!) (!) (!) .
The order under contempt was issued because the police and judicial officers involved in the remand proceedings disregarded the court’s explicit directions and granted police custody remand, leading to illegal detention of the petitioner for nearly 48 hours after the remand period ended (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The conduct of the Investigating Officer and the judicial officer who granted the remand was found to be in gross violation of the court’s order, amounting to contempt. The remand application was based on misrepresentations and a misconception that the court’s order permitted such action, which was not the case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s allegations of custodial torture were examined, with medical evidence indicating no signs of injury, and the judicial officer personally observing the petitioner’s feet. The court found that the complaint of torture was not reasonably substantiated based on the evidence and observations (!) (!) (!) .
The conduct of the judicial officer in dismissing the complaint without recording statements of witnesses and without following proper procedures was deemed improper and was later set aside by a higher court, which mandated proper recording of statements for such complaints (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the practice of incorporating conditions in anticipatory bail orders allowing police custody remand was inconsistent with the legal principles laid down, and such blanket permissions are not supported by law. The discretion to seek custody must be exercised with judicial caution and based on specific circumstances (!) (!) .
Several respondents, including police officials and judicial officers, tendered unconditional apologies for their acts or omissions, which were considered in the context of whether their actions were deliberate or based on a bona fide misconception. Nonetheless, the main individuals responsible for the contemptuous acts—particularly the police officer and the judicial officer—were held guilty of contempt for acting in defiance of the court’s explicit order (!) (!) .
The court discharged contempt notices issued to certain officials whose actions were found to be based on misconceptions or procedural lapses, but held the police officer and the judicial officer guilty of contempt for willful disobedience (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court reiterated the importance of exercising judicial discretion with caution, especially regarding orders of anticipatory bail, and emphasized that such orders do not inherently permit routine or automatic police custody remand, particularly during the pendency of a special leave petition (!) (!) .
The final orders made the earlier interim protections absolute and disposed of the special leave petitions, reinforcing that the petitioner’s right to liberty and protection under the court’s order must be upheld and that violations constitute contempt of court (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of strict compliance with court orders, the necessity of judicial prudence in remand proceedings, and the accountability of officials who act in disregard of judicial directives.
JUDGMENT :
Contempt Petition (Civil) No.......of 2024 (D. No. 1106 of 2024) in SLP (Crl.) No. 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 herein-below:
“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.
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 ‘Cr.P.C.’) 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 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 Sp
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail orders must be strictly adhered to, and any violation constitutes contempt, particularly when it leads to illegal detention.
The court emphasized the necessity for police to adhere to procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C. before arrest, ensuring reasoned remand orders to prevent unlawful detention.
Illegal arrest –Power to arrest – No arrest without reasonable satisfaction
The judgment emphasizes the interpretation and application of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in determining the commencement of a convict's imprisonment term.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of remand must be based on a proper understanding of the law, including the provisions of Sec. 41 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines lai....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
