Supreme Court said "it seems Gujarat follows different laws" (Representational)
Terming as "grossest of contempt" the police remand of a Gujarat businessman after it had granted him anticipatory bail, an exasperated Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to police officials and a judicial magistrate of Surat and ordered them to be present before it on January 29.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, which had allowed anticipatory bail to Surat resident Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah in a cheating case, got irked when it was informed that the businessman was remanded in police custody, and allegedly threatened and beaten to extort Rs 1.65 crore from him in the presence of the complainant.
"It seems Gujarat follows different laws. It is happening in the diamond capital of the world. This is a pure violation of our orders. Let the magistrate and the investigating officer come and explain how the remand orders were passed. We will direct the DGP to send the contemnors to Sabarmati jail or somewhere else. Let them come on January 29 and explain to us (the reasons for remand) in an affidavit. This is the grossest of contempt," the bench said.
Senior advocate Iqbal H Syed and advocate Mohammad Aslam, appearing for Shah, said they have filed an application with the commissioner of police to preserve the CCTV footage of Surat's Vesu police station from December 13, 2023, till December 16, 2023, when the petitioner was in police custody.
"How could the petitioner be taken into custody in violation of the court's order? How could the IO (Investigating Officer) dare to seek remand of the petitioner?" the bench asked.
It asked ASG SV Raju, appearing for the Gujarat government, about the existence of CCTV footage following which he said the cameras were not working.
A livid Justice Mehta said, "This was expected. It's intentional. The cameras may not have been working for those four days. The police may not have marked his (Shah) presence in the police station diary. This is sheer abuse of power. In a crime of civil nature, why was remand required? Was there a murder weapon which was to be recovered?"
Justice Gavai asked when the Supreme Court had on December 8, 2023, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, how was the remand order passed and Shah taken into custody.
"Let this be corrected in some manner. The IO and the magistrate must learn some lessons from this. We will issue a contempt notice to the magistrate also. Is this the way they deal with the Supreme Court's order? Mr Raju, ask everyone to come on January 29 with all their bags and baggage. We will decide on January 29 what needs to be done with them," Justice Gavai said.
Raju tried to defuse the situation and apologised to the bench, acknowledging that the investigating officer had committed a blunder.
"What has happened is gross. It was four-day illegal custody. Let the magistrate and the IO be inside for four days," the bench said angrily.
The Supreme Court then issued notices to the additional chief secretary of the state's home department, commissioner of police of Surat, deputy commissioner of police, inspector of Vesu police station, and the additional chief judicial magistrate concerned and sought their replies by January 29.
In his plea, Shah said the Supreme Court had on December 8, 2023, ordered that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail in connection with the FIR dated July 21, 2023 subject to him executing a personal bond of Rs 25,000.
He said after the December 8 order, he went to the police station on December 11 to join the investigation. Police arrested him the same day and released him on bail after he executed a bond as directed by the Supreme Court. Shah was served a notice by the city police the same day (December 11) asking him to be present on December 12 for further recording of his statement in the case.
"Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice directing him to remain present before the court of the concerned magistrate for the purpose of seeking his police remand. The service of this notice dated December 12, 2023, marks the beginning of a chain of actions in contempt of the order of this court dated December 8, 2023, committed by the respondent authorities with the ulterior motive of extorting a sum of Rs. 1.65 crores from the petitioner," his plea said.
Shah added that the judicial magistrate vide order dated December 13, 2023, heard the remand application moved by police and remanded him in police custody till December 16, 2023, in contempt of the Supreme Court order. He was again produced before the magistrate after the remand period got over.
His plea said, "These acts by the respondents are deliberate and in wilful disobedience of the order dated December 8, 2023, passed by this court in Special Leave Petition... The respondent authorities acting in contempt of the order of this court have deprived the petitioner of his liberty and violated his human rights in direct contempt of the order of this court, with the sole intention of extorting the sum of money from him."
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)