The Supreme Court of India has taken up a contempt petition filed by Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah, alleging wilful disobedience of the court’s interim order of anticipatory bail by various police officials. The case involves serious accusations of custodial torture and non-compliance with judicial directives.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is reviewing a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India, filed by Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah. The petitioner alleges that police officials willfully disobeyed the Court's interim order of anticipatory bail.

Background

The petitioner, along with other co-accused, was named in an FIR filed by Kamal Dayani, alleging financial fraud involving the sale of 15 shops. Shah was accused of receiving INR 1.65 crores in cash without delivering possession of the shops as agreed.

Legal Proceedings

• Sessions Court and High Court Decisions: Shah's applications for anticipatory bail were denied by both the Sessions Court and the High Court.
• Supreme Court Intervention: Shah approached the Supreme Court, which granted interim anticipatory bail on December 8, 2023.

Allegations of Custodial Torture

The petitioner claims that despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive, he was subjected to custodial torture from December 13 to December 16, 2023, during his time at Vesu Police Station.

Court's Findings

• Non-Compliance with Judicial Order: The Court noted that the language of its order was unambiguous, and no interpretation allowed for police custody during the interim bail period.
• Role of Police Officials:
  • Commissioner of Police, Surat: The Court found no direct involvement of the Commissioner in the alleged custodial actions but noted the issue of non-functional CCTV cameras.
  • Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Surat: The Deputy Commissioner tendered an unconditional apology and provided a detailed affidavit addressing the allegations.

CCTV Footage and Evidence

An FSL report indicated that the CCTV footage from Vesu Police Station was intact but only contained data until January 13, 2020. This discrepancy raised questions about the handling and availability of relevant footage during the alleged custodial torture period.

Current Status

The issues of custodial violence are under departmental proceedings and a separate criminal complaint by the petitioner, leading the Court to withhold any comments on these matters within the contempt proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court continues to scrutinize the actions of the police officials involved, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to judicial orders and protection of individuals' rights during custodial procedures. The case highlights ongoing challenges in ensuring accountability within the law enforcement system.