The Supreme Court of India held a police inspector and a magistrate in contempt for violating an interim anticipatory bail order. The court found that the police inspector had maliciously sought the petitioner's remand and the magistrate had arbitrarily granted it, disregarding the Supreme Court's order.

In the case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors., the Supreme Court division bench found Police Inspector R.Y. Raval and 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar guilty of contempt of court. The Apex Court held that the officers had willfully disobeyed its interim anticipatory bail order issued on December 8, 2023.

The case involves a contempt of court petition stemming from the alleged violation of an interim anticipatory bail order. Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah (petitioner), was named as a co-accused in a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that he received a sum of Rs. 1.65 crores for the sale of 15 shops but failed to deliver possession as promised in an oral agreement.
The petitioner anticipatory bail applications rejected by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court and was granted interim anticipatory bail on December 8, 2023. This order stipulated that he should be released on bail in the event of arrest and mandated his cooperation with the investigation.

Failure to Follow Instructions:
Despite these clear instructions, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner and placed him in police custody for three days following a remand application. This action directly contravened the Supreme Court's interim anticipatory bail order, which did not grant any liberty to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody. The 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), responsible for granting the police custody remand, justified this decision based on an alleged "prevailing practice" in the State of Gujarat that allows for such action despite the presence of an anticipatory bail order.
However, the Supreme Court deemed this practice contradictory to established legal precedent and reiterated that courts are not obligated to grant police custody remand as a matter of routine in anticipatory bail cases. The court found the Investigating Officer’s grounds for requesting remand – non-cooperation with the investigation – to be flimsy and lacking merit. Additionally, the court determined that the allegations presented in the FIR appeared to be civil in nature, further weakening the justification for police custody.

Importance of Clear and Unambiguous Court Orders:
The judgment emphasizes that court orders, especially those concerning personal liberty, should be clear and leave no scope for misinterpretation and the Court emphasized that the language of its interim anticipatory bail order was clear and unambiguous, thus, none of the respondents had the authority to interpret the order differently.

Anticipatory Bail and Police Custody:
The Supreme Court clarifies the legal position regarding police custody after anticipatory bail. It reiterates that courts should exercise their discretion cautiously and avoid imposing routine conditions that grant blanket permission to the police to seek remand.

Judicial Conduct and Bias:
The judgment underlines the importance of judicial impartiality and highlights how certain actions, like dismissing a complaint without following due process, can be perceived as biased and undermine the integrity of the judicial process. The Apex Court rejected the magistrate's reliance on the prevalent practice in Gujarat of routinely granting police custody even in cases of anticipatory bail. It underlined that this practice contradicts the law established in Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) and declared the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat overruled. The Apex Court emphasized that courts should exercise the power to grant anticipatory bail with great degree of circumspection and held "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" And it further expressed concern over the magistrate's conduct in handling the petitioner's complaint of custodial torture, emphasizing that immediate medical examination should have been conducted as per the mandate of Section 54 CrPC.

Illegal Detention:
The Court reaffirms the importance of personal liberty and condemns the illegal detention of individuals, even for short durations. It stresses the need for judicial officers to act diligently and ensure the prompt release of individuals once the grounds for their detention cease to exist.

The Supreme Court discharged the contempt notices against the other respondents, including the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement in the contemptuous acts, and the Court made the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner absolute until the culmination of the proceedings arising from the FIR.

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Between:Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors
DOJ:07-08-2024