The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, accepted the Magistrate’s unconditional apology and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Police Officer.
NEW DELHI: Today (2nd Sept): The Supreme Court passed a sentence in the contempt case involving a Gujarat Police Officer and Judicial Magistrate for arresting and remanding an accused in violation of its order granting interim anticipatory bail.
READ ALSO: “Contempt For Unlawful Arrest” Apex Court Found Guilty Police Inspector & Magistrate
The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, accepted the Magistrate’s unconditional apology and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Police Officer.
The controversy arose when the Gujarat police, allegedly acting under the instructions of the Judicial Magistrate, unlawfully arrested and detained an accused despite a clear bail order from the Supreme Court.
Earlier, the supreme court bench, led by Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, issued contempt notices on January 10 to several high-ranking officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, the Police Commissioner, and the Deputy Police Commissioner of Surat, along with the implicated police inspector and magistrate.
The accused was held in custody for three days, during which time their liberty was restricted, contrary to the court’s directions.
The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter, leading to contempt proceedings against the involved officials.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, representing the police official, made an impassioned plea for leniency during the hearing. He urged the court to consider the broader context and requested that the court limit any punitive measures to an exemplary fine.
However, the bench, comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice BR Gavai, was not swayed by these arguments.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, questioned the rationale behind the actions of the Gujarat police and the Judicial Magistrate. He emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law, stating:
“Are you suggesting, even for a moment, that the rule of law allows for liberty to be restricted for three days despite our order? Absolutely not. This was a completely malafide remand.”
Justice BR Gavai further criticized the conduct of the officials involved, particularly noting the absence of crucial CCTV footage that could have shed light on allegations of police torture. He remarked:
“Even the CCTV footage showing police torture is conveniently missing. The judge, acting as a recovery judge, shows no remorse.”
Justice Mehta also questioned the sincerity of the apologies submitted by the contemnors, observing:
“apology appears to be merely symbolic.”
However, the Court took into account the judicial officer’s 14-year unblemished career and noted that the Gujarat Courts had been following an erroneous practice of allowing the police to seek remand of the accused even after the grant of anticipatory bail.
During the proceedings, the Solicitor General, representing the State of Gujarat, acknowledged the gravity of the situation and the potential for administrative action against the judicial officer involved.
However, he also sought to moderate the court’s response, suggesting that the case might be resolved without imposing severe penalties. He stated:
“I understand the request may seem unreasonable. The judicial officer found guilty of contempt could face administrative action.”
Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court maintained its firm stance. The bench noted the problematic practices prevalent in the State of Gujarat, which had led to this contempt case. The court’s order highlighted the seriousness of the officials’ actions and the need for accountability.
In its final order, the Supreme Court accepted the unconditional apology of the Judicial Magistrate, taking a lenient view in her case.
The court acknowledged her otherwise spotless record and decided not to impose a harsh penalty. However, the police official was fined Rs 25,000 for his role in the illegal detention.
The court also made a significant amendment to the original order that held the judge guilty. The bench removed a sentence from the order that specifically mentioned the judge’s contribution to the illegal detention:
“The contemnor-respondent No. 7’s actions also contributed to the illegal detention of the petitioner for nearly 48 hours beyond the end of the police remand period.”
