TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH    [PETITIONER(S)] Vs. KAMAL DAYANI & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) NO(S). 14489 OF 2023

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ.)

In this case, the Supreme Court underscored the judiciary’s responsibility to carefully scrutinize requests for remand, rather than acting as mere facilitators for investigating agencies. This decision arose in the context of a contempt petition filed by Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah, who alleged that police officials and a judicial magistrate failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s interim order granting him anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused of receiving ₹1.65 crores in cash for the sale of 15 shops without delivering possession, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was filed. Both the Sessions Court and High Court denied bail, leading the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, which granted interim anticipatory bail. However, after presenting himself at the police station, the petitioner was arrested, released on bail, but later remanded to police custody by the 6th ACJM, despite Supreme Court protection. The petitioner alleges police torture during custody and irregularities in subsequent legal proceedings, including forced bail under duress.

Mr. Iqbal Syed, senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was wrongfully placed in police custody despite a court order granting anticipatory bail. He contended that the investigating officer violated the court’s directive by seeking police custody without proper authorization, leading to the petitioner’s illegal detention for six days. Furthermore, he highlighted procedural errors and alleged bias by the 6th ACJM, who disregarded the court’s order and mishandled the petitioner’s complaint of custodial torture. Additionally, there were claims of tampering with CCTV evidence by police officials. He urged the court to hold the respondents in contempt and make the interim bail order absolute. Shri R. Basant, senior counsel for the High Court of Gujarat, argued that the petitioner’s reliance on the Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre judgment was misplaced since it was overruled by a larger bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). The courts in Gujarat, following the Division Bench ruling in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat, regularly allow investigating officers to seek police custody even for those granted anticipatory bail. He contended that the magistrate acted within her jurisdiction in granting remand, and the contemnors, including police officers and a judicial officer, all tendered unconditional apologies, requesting leniency.

The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion and the need for courts to evaluate the merits of remand applications thoroughly. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts should not automatically approve such applications, as doing so could lead to potential misuse of the legal process and unjustified detentions. The case also emphasizes the Court’s commitment to ensuring that judicial orders, especially those related to anticipatory bail, are respected and enforced by all authorities involved. It held that the power to grant anticipatory bail should not be exercised casually, and courts are expected to apply this provision with careful consideration.