TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH versus KAMAL DAYANI & ORS.

TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH versus KAMAL DAYANI & ORS.

The Investigating Officer (R.Y. Raval) and the Magistrate (Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar) committed contempt by procuring and ordering police custody remand of the petitioner during the currency of this Court's absolute interim anticipatory bail order of 08.12.2023; the long-standing practice in Gujarat of routinely granting Investigating Officers blanket liberty to seek police custody remand when anticipatory bail is granted is inconsistent with the ratio in Sushila Aggarwal and is not permissible; magistrates must apply judicial mind before granting police remand and must follow mandatory procedures on complaints of custodial violence.

Parties
Petitioner: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah; Respondent: Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition / Adjudicated (judgment on Contempt Petition and Related Slps)
Outcome
Contempt petition allowed in part; contemnor R.Y. Raval (Police Inspector) and contemnor Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar (6th ACJM) held guilty of contempt; other contemnors discharged in part; related SLPs disposed of and interim anticipatory bail made absolute
Legal Topics
Anticipatory Bail, Police Custody Remand, Custodial Violence, CCTV in Police Stations, Non Cooperation in Investigation, Magistrate Powers Under Cr PC, Section 438 Cr PC / Section 482 BNSS
Contempt of Court Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Investigation Anticipatory Bail Police Custody Remand Custodial Violence +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah

Petitioner

Kamal Dayani & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition / Adjudicated (judgment on Contempt Petition and Related Slps)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether remanding an accused to police custody during the currency of an absolute interim anticipatory bail order of the Supreme Court amounts to contempt
  2. 2 Whether an Investigating Officer has liberty to seek police custody remand after anticipatory bail has been granted by a competent court and whether local practice can authorise blanket liberty to do so
  3. 3 Whether a Magistrate may grant police custody remand during subsistence of a Supreme Court interim anticipatory bail order and the requisite judicial mind required before granting remand

Ratio Decidendi

The Investigating Officer (R.Y. Raval) and the Magistrate (Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar) committed contempt by procuring and ordering police custody remand of the petitioner during the currency of this Court's absolute interim anticipatory bail order of 08.12.2023; the long-standing practice in Gujarat of routinely granting Investigating Officers blanket liberty to seek police custody remand when anticipatory bail is granted is inconsistent with the ratio in Sushila Aggarwal and is not permissible; magistrates must apply judicial mind before granting police remand and must follow mandatory procedures on complaints of custodial violence.

Court Disposition

Contempt petition allowed in part; contemnor R.Y. Raval (Police Inspector) and contemnor Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar (6th ACJM) held guilty of contempt; other contemnors discharged in part; related SLPs disposed of and interim anticipatory bail made absolute

Orders

  • R.Y. Raval, Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat (contemnor-respondent No.4) held guilty of gross contempt for procuring police custody remand during currency of Supreme Court order dated 08.12.2023
  • Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (contemnor-respondent No.7) held guilty of contempt for granting police remand and for conduct regarding custodial violence complaint