Courts Not Messengers Of Investigating Agencies, Remand Shouldn't Be Allowed Routinely: Supreme Court Holds Magistrate Guilty Of Contempt

Judicial Magistrates are not expected to act as "messengers of the investigating agencies", stated the Supreme Court while holding a Chief Judicial Magistrate guilty of contempt of court for remanding an accused in violation of an order of the Supreme Court granting interim anticipatory bail.The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, emphasised that remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner.Despite the interim order of the Supreme Court, the police filed an application before the Mag"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," the judgment stated.In this regard, reference was made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 223 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," the Court stated.The Court was deciding a contempt petition filed by a man from Gujarat who was arrested and remanded in violation of the interim order of the Supreme Court.The Court held 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 the Court's direction.The Court has asked the contemnors to remain present on September 02, 2024, to decide their sentences.Regarding the conduct of the MagistrateThe Court refused to accept the explanation of the Magistrate that the practice followed in Gujarat is that while granting anticipatory bail, the police is given liberty to seek remand of the accused."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 Court was also taken aback to note that the accused was kept in detention till December 18, 2023 although the police custody remand expired on December 16, 2023."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."If the order granting police custody remand was passed bona fide based on some misconception, then, the Magistrate 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 Court said.Magistrate did not act on complaint of custodial torture The Court also criticised the Magistrate for casually dismissing the petitioner's complaint regarding custodial torture."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 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...

Courts Not Messengers Of Investigating Agencies, Remand Shouldn't Be Allowed Routinely: Supreme Court Holds Magistrate Guilty Of Contempt

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags