Supreme Court Rebukes Gujarat Magistrate For Remanding Accused Despite SC's Interim Bail; Reserves Judgment On Contempt Plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 12) reserved judgment on a contempt petition filed against the police officers and a Judicial Magistrate from Gujarat for arresting and remanding an accused ignoring an interim anticipatory bail order passed by the Supreme Court.During the hearing, the bench made several strong remarks deprecating the conduct of the police and the Magistrate. To give a brief background, the petitioner, who was named as an accused in an FIR for the offence of cheating, approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court denied him bail. On December 8, 2023, while issuing notice on his petition, the Court granted him interim anticipatory bail with the condition that he should continue to cooperate with the investigation. However, it is the petitioner's case that despite the interim anticipatory bail order of the Supreme Court, he was served with a notice on December 12, 2023, directing him to remain present before the Magistrate in response to the police's custody application. The Magistrate remanded him to police custody for four days till December 16. He alleged that while in police custody, he was threatened and beaten.Following this, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court. On January 10, a Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta issued contempt notices to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department of Gujarat Government, Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Surat, Police Inspector of Vesu Police Station. The Court also issued contempt notice to the 6th Additional Chief Magistrate, Surat, who remanded the petitioner to police custody despite the interim order of the Supreme Court. Previously, the Bench had expressed surprise at the practice followed by Courts in Gujarat of giving the police liberty to seek remand of the accused even while granting anticipatory bail.During today's hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta inquired from ASG SV Raju, who appeared for the police commissioner, that since the accused was under the protection of this Court's order when the remand was sought, could the IO(Investigating Officer) have sought his custody?ASG replied that the IO was wrong, but said that the question was whether the mistake was deliberate. Does Cooperation mean that the accused must bow down to the investigating officers' desires? As the arguments unfolded, ASG SV Raju relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab., 1980 AIR 1632. Inter-alia, the following para was read in the Court: “We are concerned here with a situation of an altogether different kind. An order of anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away from the police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. In fact, two of the usual conditions incorporated in a direction issued under Section 438 (1) are those recommended in Sub-section (2) (i) and(ii) which require the applicant to co-operate with the police and to assure that he shall not tamper with the witnesses during and after the investigation. While granting relief under Section 438 (1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438 (2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One of such conditions can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery.” In this respect, Justice Mehta commented that if the police argue that custody remand is essential to discover certain facts, then they are talking of "third-degree." Otherwise, the condition is there in the bail order to cooperate with the investigation. “Does Cooperation mean that the accused must bow down to the investigating officers' desires?”, the judge asked. At this, Raju tried convincing the Bench that custody is necessary for Section 27 under the Evidence Act. However, Justice Mehta countered: If at all during interrogation, there is any discovery despite the accused being on anticipatory bail, it will be deemed custody. It will be deemed custody for the purpose of the discovery of that fact.ASG agreed and, at the same time, pleaded with the Court to look from the viewpoint of a police officer where day-in and day-out anticipatory bail orders are being passed, and these conditions are being imposed. Raju also submitted that he is not justifying the impugned actions, and the Supreme Court's order was misinterpreted. It might be negligent or a reckless mistake but there is no deliberate intention to flout the Supreme Court's order, ASG attempted to convince the Bench. ASG further averred that since such conditions were routinely passed in Gujarat, the inspector's mindset was that he was entitled to do so. By the end of his arguments, Raju contended that as far as the police commissioner was...

Supreme Court Rebukes Gujarat Magistrate For Remanding Accused Despite SC's Interim Bail; Reserves Judgment On Contempt Plea

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Supreme Court Rebukes Gujarat Magistrate For Remanding Accused Despite SC's Interim Bail; Reserves Judgment On Contempt Plea

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers