2024 (8) TMI 1594 - SC - Indian Laws

Wilful disobedience by the respondents-contemnors - Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India - confessional statement made by accused - admissible evidences or not - HELD THAT - The non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated he must confess to the crime and only thereafter would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record. The Investigating Officer should have at the first instance put the complainant to serious questioning and strict proof because while alleging in FIR that he had given a huge sum of Rs. 1.65 crores to the accused-petitioner the complainant(contemnor- respondent No. 6) himself had acted in gross contravention of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002(for short PMLA ). By blindly placing reliance on the unverified allegations of the complainant based on a huge cash transaction and registering the FIR without even making a basic enquiry on this vital aspect the police officials to be specific the Investigating Officer(contemnor-respondent No. 4) clearly colluded with the complainant(contemnor-respondent No. 6) by trying to give the civil dispute based on allegation of breach of oral agreement the colour of a crime. The FIR against the accused-petitioner was pertaining to a dispute which prima facie appears to be of a civil nature and hence the learned Magistrate ought not to have toed the line of the Investigating Officer while granting police custody remand of the accused-petitioner - As a matter of fact the application seeking police custody remand of the petitioner could not have been entertained without seeking permission of this Court as observed in the case of Sushila Agarwal 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT . There was not even a shred of bona fide in the actions of the Investigating Officer(contemnor-respondent No. 4) while seeking police custody remand of the accused on the purported ground of non-cooperation in investigation. The exercise of seeking police custody remand during currency of the interim protection granted to the petitioner was in sheer defiance of this Court s order dated 8th December 2023 and tantamounts to contempt on the face of the record. Hence there are no hesitation in holding that while seeking for and procuring the police custody remand of the accused in the teeth of the order dated 8th December 2023 the Investigating Officer R.Y. Raval Police Inspector Vesu Police Station Surat(contemnor-respondent No. 4) is guilty of gross contempt. The contempt notices issued to respondent Nos. 2 i.e. Ajay Kumar Tomar Commissioner of Police Surat respondent No. 3 i.e. Vijaysinh Gurjar Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-4 Surat and respondent No. 6 i.e. Abhishek Vinodkumar Goswami(complainant) stand discharged. SLP disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the Investigating Officer had the authority to seek police custody remand of an accused during the subsistence of an interim anticipatory bail order granted by the Supreme Court.Whether the Magistrate was justified in granting police custody remand of the accused despite the interim bail order.Whether the detention of the accused beyond the period of police custody remand without fresh judicial authorization violated constitutional rights.Whether the complaint of custodial torture made by the accused was properly dealt with by the Magistrate in accordance with statutory procedure.Whether the non-functioning and loss of CCTV footage at the police station constituted contempt or negligence warranting sanction.Whether the practice of routinely granting liberty to Investigating Officers to seek police custody remand in anticipatory bail orders is legally tenable.Whether the conduct of police officials and judicial officers amounted to wilful disobedience and contempt of the Supreme Court's order.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Investigating Officer had no authority to seek police custody remand of the accused during the currency of the Supreme Court's interim anticipatory bail order dated 8th December, 2023, as the order was "absolute, until modified or altered" and did not permit such remand.The Magistrate's grant of police custody remand was a "bona fide mistake in interpretation" but amounted to "contempt" as it was contrary to the unambiguous Supreme Court order; reliance on "long-standing practice" did not justify the act.Detention of the accused for nearly 48 hours beyond the expiry of the police custody remand period without any judicial order was "absolutely unconstitutional and contrary to the letter and spirit of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India."The Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 200 and 202 CrPC by rejecting the complaint of custodial torture without recording statements of the complainant and witnesses; such conduct was "illegal and improper" and was set aside by the High Court.The non-functioning of CCTV cameras and loss of footage at the police station was a breach of the mandate in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh but should be addressed at the departmental level; no contempt was found against the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police on this ground.The routine practice of granting Investigating Officers liberty to seek police custody remand in anticipatory bail orders in Gujarat is "in direct contravention" of the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and is "impliedly overruled."The Investigating Officer and the Magistrate were held guilty of "gross contempt" and "wilful disobedience" of the Supreme Court order dated 8th December, 2023; other respondents were discharged from contempt proceedings.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and constitutional provisions under Article 129, emphasizing the supremacy and binding nature of Supreme Court orders.The Court relied on precedents including Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (overruled), Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Constitution Bench), Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, and Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh to delineate the scope and conditions of anticipatory bail and police custody remand.The Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail orders are not "blanket" protections and do not inherently confer liberty to Investigating Officers to seek police custody remand without express permission from the bail-granting court.The Court underscored the importance of individual liberty under Article 21 and the necessity for courts to exercise judicial discretion with circumspection, especially in granting police custody remand during pendency of anticipatory bail.The Court held that the Magistrate's failure to follow statutory procedures under CrPC Sections 200 and 202 in dealing with custodial torture complaints constituted procedural impropriety and bias, warranting intervention by the High Court and this Court.The Court rejected the defense based on "prevailing practice" in Gujarat, holding that such practice cannot override binding Supreme Court orders and legal principles.The Court distinguished between bona fide errors and wilful disobedience, finding the Investigating Officer's remand application to be a "cooked up" and "malicious" act amounting to contempt, while the Magistrate's actions, although a "bona fide mistake," also constituted contempt due to bias and disregard for the Supreme Court's clear order.The Court directed that departmental proceedings be initiated for police officials responsible for CCTV failures, but declined to treat such failures as contempt in the instant proceedings.The Court made the interim anticipatory bail absolute till the conclusion of the FIR proceedings, emphasizing the protection of liberty pending final adjudication.