Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah, was an accused in FIR No. 11210068230266 dated 21 July 2023 for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging receipt of Rs. 1.65 crores in cash for sale of 15 shops without handing over possession. His anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Court and High Court. He then approached the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023, which on 8 December 2023 granted interim anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of arrest, he be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, and also directed him to cooperate with the investigation. On 11 December 2023, the petitioner appeared at Vesu Police Station with the order. The Investigating Officer, R.Y. Raval (contemnor-respondent No. 4), arrested him and then released him on bail as per the order. The same day, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41A CrPC to appear for further investigation. On 12 December 2023, another notice was served requiring him to appear before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) for remand proceedings. The notice referenced the Supreme Court order but did not state that the petitioner had failed to cooperate. On 13 December 2023, the petitioner appeared before the 6th ACJM, Surat (contemnor-respondent No. 7). The Investigating Officer filed an application seeking seven days police custody remand. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Supreme Court order did not permit remand. However, the ACJM observed that the order did not prohibit remand and granted police custody remand till 16 December 2023. The petitioner filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution, alleging wilful disobedience by the respondents. The Supreme Court examined the facts and found that the actions of the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate constituted wilful disobedience of its order. The Court noted that the order granting interim anticipatory bail was clear and did not permit arrest or remand without just cause. The Court held that the respondents had acted in gross derision of the order and initiated contempt proceedings.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129, Constitution of India - Interim Anticipatory Bail - The Supreme Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner directing his release on bail in the event of arrest. Despite this, the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner, released him on bail, and then served notices requiring appearance for remand. The Magistrate granted police custody remand, ignoring the Supreme Court's order. Held that the actions of the respondents amounted to wilful disobedience of the court's order, constituting contempt of court (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the Supreme Court's order granting interim anticipatory bail, by arresting the petitioner and seeking police custody remand despite the order's protection.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found that the respondents committed contempt of court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 8 December 2023. The Court initiated contempt proceedings against the contemnors.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 12
- Article 129 of Constitution of India
- Wilful Disobedience
- Anticipatory Bail
- Police Custody Remand
- Interim Protection
