Police was not expected to act as messenger… SC takes strict action against judge

New Delhi. The Supreme Court granted interim bail to a youth in a criminal case. According to the rule, once the High Judiciary grants relief to a person, then the lower court cannot do anything in it. The police and administrative staff will also have to obey that order. A case came to light in Gujarat where, ignoring the order of the Supreme Court, the police arrested a person despite interim bail (anticipatory bail). Not only this, the magistrate judge also did not stop the police from doing so. In this case, the Supreme Court has found both the judge and the police inspector guilty of contempt.

The court said, “We hold R.Y. Rawal, Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat and Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (contemnor-respondent no. 7) guilty of contempt of the order of this Court dated December 8, 2023.” While sending the accused for custodial interrogation, the evidence that he was granted anticipatory bail by none other than the Supreme Court was ignored. The apex court accused the said judge of Gujarat of acting in a “biased” and “arbitrary manner” while granting police custody.

Also read:- Accommodation, free car service! What is special about the special help desk of Punjab Government at IGI Airport?

This is not expected from the courts…
In a ruling, the court said that the criminal justice system requires courts to exercise judicial discretion on the facts of the case before granting police custody, provided it is “really necessary”. The apex court said, “Courts are not expected to act as messengers of the investigating agencies and remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner.” A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta had granted anticipatory bail to Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah on December 8, 2023.

Despite the order, the judge did not consider the petition…
The bench expressed surprise that despite the implementation of its order, a judicial officer considered the plea of ​​the investigating officer (IO) and sent the accused to police custody for interrogation. The bench said, “The action of the contemptuous respondent number seven (Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thacker, 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat) in sending the petitioner to police custody and not releasing him on completion of its period is clearly against the order of this court… and amounts to contempt.

Now contempt proceedings will be initiated…
The court said, “The disobedient action of the contemnor-respondent (judge) is also responsible for keeping the petitioner in illegal custody for about 48 hours after the expiry of the period of police remand.” It said that the conduct of the judicial officer clearly indicates his biased approach in this case. Discussing in detail the role of Police Inspector RY Rawal of Vesu Police Station, Surat, the court said that the application for his police custody during the interim protection given to the accused is a “blatant disregard of the order of this court” and is “tantamount to contempt”.

The judge apologized unconditionally…
The bench held him guilty of contempt of its December 8 order last year. Writing a 73-page judgment, Justice Gavai said the Supreme Court order leaves no doubt that the interim protection of anticipatory bail is “absolute, unless it modifies or alters it while deciding this petition” which is still pending. – Refusing to accept the judge’s unconditional apology to the subordinate court, the court said he had dealt with the matter in a “predetermined manner”. The bench, however, acquitted the Surat Police Commissioner of contempt charges, saying his role was limited to the aspect of non-functioning of CCTV cameras installed at the police station to ascertain the accused’s claim of torture in custody.

Tags: Gujarat news, Supreme Court, Surat News