Anticipatory bail and police remand: court treats routine custody request as impermissible and continues protection till case ends.

A subsisting anticipatory bail order requiring release on arrest was held not to carry any implied routine liberty to seek or grant police custody remand; if custodial interrogation was genuinely needed, the investigating agency had to approach the court that granted protection. Seeking remand on misstatements, and continuing detention through fresh bail-bond demands after the remand period, amounted to wilful disobedience and contempt against the investigating officer and the Magistrate. On the remaining respondents, no direct role in the remand or non-compliance was shown, so the contempt notices were discharged. The Court also directed that the ad-interim anticipatory bail continue until the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR conclude.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether seeking and granting police custody remand, and the ensuing continued detention, in the teeth of the Court's interim anticipatory bail order amounted to contempt; (ii) whether the other respondents were liable in contempt on the facts concerning the police station CCTV system and their role in the proceedings; (iii) whether the ad-interim anticipatory bail granted earlier should continue till the culmination of the criminal proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether seeking and granting police custody remand, and the ensuing continued detention, in the teeth of the Court's interim anticipatory bail order amounted to contempt.

Analysis: The interim order of anticipatory bail was held to be clear and unambiguous, requiring release on bail in the event of arrest. The Court held that such an order did not permit a routine or blanket liberty to the investigating agency to seek police custody remand, and that if custodial interrogation was genuinely required the proper course was to approach the Court which had granted the protection. The remand application was found to rest on misstatements and to be unsupported by any real showing of non-cooperation. The Magistrate's order granting remand, and the subsequent insistence on fresh bail bonds after the remand period ended, were held to have resulted in unlawful detention and to have acted in defiance of the subsisting order of the Court.

Conclusion: The Police Inspector and the Magistrate were held guilty of contempt, and their conduct was found to be in wilful and gross disobedience of the Court's order.

Issue (ii): Whether the other respondents were liable in contempt on the facts concerning the police station CCTV system and their role in the proceedings.

Analysis: The Commissioner of Police was found to have no direct role in the investigation or in the remand proceedings, and the deficiencies concerning CCTV functioning were treated as a matter for departmental scrutiny rather than contempt. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was also not shown to be directly responsible for the non-compliance complained of, and the same approach was adopted in relation to the complainant. On these facts, the contempt jurisdiction was not invoked against them.

Conclusion: The contempt notices issued to the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and the complainant were discharged.

Issue (iii): Whether the ad-interim anticipatory bail granted earlier should continue till the culmination of the criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier orders protecting the petitioners were to remain operative until the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR concluded. The Court also held that the understanding prevalent in the State of Gujarat, by which anticipatory bail orders were treated as implicitly permitting police custody remand as a matter of course, was contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench on anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The ad-interim anticipatory bail was made to enure till the culmination of the proceedings arising from the FIR.

Final Conclusion: The contempt proceedings resulted in findings of contempt only against the investigating officer and the Magistrate, while the remaining contemnors were discharged, and the interim protection from arrest was continued until the criminal case reached its end.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting anticipatory bail order that clearly directs release on arrest cannot be treated as carrying an implied routine liberty to seek or grant police custody remand; any custodial requirement must be brought before the Court that granted the protection, and disobedience of such an order can amount to contempt.

---