Supreme Court slams Gujarat police, magistrate for remand of accused who was granted anticipatory bail

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up a Surat magistrate and the Gujarat Police for remanding an accused to custody after he was granted interim anticipatory bail by the apex court. [Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat].A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta sought the response of the Gujarat High Court in the matter, after impleading the High Court as a party."[Counsel] submit that there is a practice prevailing in the Gujarat High Court that a condition is imposed in the order granting anticipatory bail whereby, liberty is granted to the Investigating Officer to apply for remand ... We find that such a condition, after finding that the petitioner/applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail on merits would defeat the very purpose of the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C", the order stated..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, at the outset stated that the remand application was a mistake, and that the officials in question have been suspended."But even an oral word from my lords will go a long way," he said, advising against any adverse remarks."What kind of order is this? Against all court orders. Orders from Gujarat are very special. There is a such a beautiful academy there, the High Court needs to retrain magistrates," Justice Gavai remarked.Justice Mehta weighed in saying,"This is totally unheard of in CrPC. Upto 14 days remand, and judges make it seem like applicant applied for regular bail. We find many decisions of Gujarat High Court where in bail there is no decision on merits for offences punishable more than 7 years, and it is adjourned saying proceed as per Antil.".The Bench was hearing a plea filed by a cheating accused seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the State government and police officials involved.He alleged that the police in Surat on remanding him had physically assaulted him, and sought to extort ₹1.6 crore from his, even as the top court had granted him pre-arrest bail in December."The Ld. Magistrate made the Petitioner file an application for regular bail to be released from custody after the remand period...which was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2023. It shows that the Respondents / Contemnors have no respect for the direction and order passed by this Hon’ble Court," the plea stated.The Gujarat High Court had on October 5 refused to grant him anticipatory bail after the Magistrate's order, leading to the instant appeal before the top court along with a contempt of court application.The Supreme Court had issued notice to the Gujarat government and concerned Surat Police officials in the matter on December 12. The petitioner had been granted bail subject to a bond of ₹25,000 with at least one surety of like amount. .Additional Solicitor Generals SV Raju and Aishwarya Bhati, and Senior Advocate DN Ray also appeared for the Gujarat government. Senior Advocate Iqbal H Syed appeared for the accused..The Supreme Court is currently seized of a case regarding compliance of its July 2022 judgment in Satender Antil, where it had, among other things, emphasised the need to enforce provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in arrests and trials.Pertinently, the Bench in that judgment had called for a new bail legislation and said that courts should decide bail applications within two weeks, except in cases where the law provides otherwise.It had flagged the fact that the rate of conviction being abysmally low might be weighing in the minds of courts while deciding bail applications.The top court had in March last year stated that magistrates who send people to custody unnecessarily should have their judicial work withdrawn, and they should be send to judicial academies for training.It further said that High Courts must ensure that the subordinate judiciary follows the law of the land. Interestingly, the top court had ordered that the judgment in Antil be made part of the curriculum of judicial academies..The current plea before the top court was filed through advocate Mohammed Aslam and drawn by advocate Vishrut Bhandari..[Read order]