A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed a contempt petition filed by the accused-petitioner, asserting wilful disobedience of the Court’s interim anticipatory bail order by the respondents, including police officials and a Magistrate. The petitioner alleged unlawful remand to police custody despite clear interim protection, procedural irregularities, custodial torture, and delayed release. The Court scrutinized the respondents’ justifications, noting significant procedural lapses and disregard for established legal principles. It held certain respondents guilty of contempt and reinforced the sanctity of judicial orders to protect individual liberty under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Keywords: Anticipatory bail, contempt of court, police custody remand, Articles 20 and 21, procedural violation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Contempt Petition (C) D. No. 1106 of 2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023

iii) Judgment Date: August 7, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

vi) Author: Not specified in the excerpt

vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 235, 2024 INSC 588

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Articles 129, 136, 20, 21 of the Constitution; Sections 438, 482, 197, 200, and 202 CrPC; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

ix) Judgments Overruled: Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat (2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14451)

x) Case Related to: Criminal Law, Contempt of Court, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The petitioner was accused in an FIR involving a property dispute but was granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court on December 8, 2023. However, police officials and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) remanded him to police custody, allegedly violating the interim bail order. He claimed custodial torture and sought judicial redress for contempt against the respondents, who justified their actions based on procedural misunderstandings and state practices.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner, accused of cheating in a civil-property dispute, was granted interim anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.

2. Despite presenting the Court’s bail order, he was arrested and remanded to police custody by the ACJM, based on a remand application citing non-cooperation.

3. The petitioner alleged custodial torture and delayed release from police custody, violating the interim bail protection.

4. A complaint of custodial violence was dismissed by the ACJM without adhering to procedural requirements under CrPC Sections 200 and 202, which was later overturned by the High Court.

5. The Supreme Court was approached with a contempt petition against the respondents for deliberate non-compliance and procedural misconduct.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether remanding the petitioner to police custody violated the interim bail order?
2. Whether the police and Magistrate committed contempt of the Supreme Court’s order?
3. Whether custodial torture allegations substantiate misconduct and procedural lapses?
4. The legality of dismissing the petitioner’s private complaint without recording statements under CrPC provisions.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Violation of Bail Order: The interim anticipatory bail barred police custody remand, yet the petitioner was remanded, violating the Supreme Court’s explicit directions.

2. Custodial Torture and Procedural Irregularity: Alleged physical torture and a failure to preserve CCTV evidence support gross misconduct.

3. Unlawful Delay in Release: The petitioner was not released promptly after the remand period expired, extending his custody unlawfully.

4. Misuse of Judicial Authority: The ACJM acted arbitrarily and beyond her jurisdiction by granting remand without proper justification.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Good Faith Justification: Respondents argued they acted in accordance with state practices allowing police remand post-anticipatory bail.

2. Unconditional Apology: All respondents tendered apologies, asserting no deliberate intention to defy the Supreme Court’s order.

3. Technical Fault in CCTV System: The police cited a pre-existing issue with the DVR system, which rendered footage unavailable.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Strict Adherence to Bail Orders: Courts and police officials must strictly adhere to the terms of anticipatory bail. Misinterpreting orders to justify police custody undermines judicial authority.

2. Due Process and Accountability: Ignoring procedural mandates under CrPC Sections 200 and 202 when handling complaints highlights judicial failures.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Judicial officers must exhibit diligence in interpreting higher court orders to uphold constitutional principles and individual liberties.

2. Practices inconsistent with constitutional values, such as granting remand despite anticipatory bail, require immediate correction.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Interim protection granted under anticipatory bail cannot be overridden without specific permission from the issuing court.

2. Magistrates must ensure compliance with CrPC provisions in handling complaints alleging police misconduct.

3. Functional CCTV systems in police stations are essential for accountability, per Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh [(2021) 1 SCC 184].

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforced judicial supremacy and procedural integrity, holding respondents accountable for contempt. This case underscores the need for systemic reforms to eliminate procedural inconsistencies, particularly regarding anticipatory bail and police custody practices.

J) REFERENCES

1. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1].
2. Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694].
3. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh [(2021) 1 SCC 184].
4. CrPC Sections 200, 202, 438, 482.
5. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.