The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a Gujarat police officer held guilty of committing contempt of court. The police officer arrested a man despite anticipatory bail by the apex court in a criminal case.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by a judicial officer, who was also held guilty of contempt in the matter.
Reprimanding the judicial officer for showing "bias" and acting in a "high-handed manner" while granting police the custody of the man who had already secured anticipatory bail, the apex court had on August 7 held her and the police officer guilty of contempt.
During the hearing on the quantum of sentence on Monday, judicial officer Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar and police officer R Y Raval were present in the court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, requested the bench to show magnanimity and compassion and said both the officers have apologised for the mistake.
The counsel appearing for Raval said the police officer has tendered his unconditional apology to the court. Thakar's counsel said the judicial officer has an excellent and unblemished track record as a judge and she too has tendered an unconditional apology.
"How conveniently the CCTV is not available for that period only?...It is amply clear why he has done it," the bench observed.
It said an order was passed by the apex court but the liberty of an individual was curtailed despite that.
"The apology is just on paper," the bench told the police officer. In its order, the bench said, "We are inclined to take a lenient view and accept her (Thakar's) apology". The apex court, however, imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on Raval.
On August 7, the top court, which had granted anticipatory bail to a Tusharbhai Rajnikant bhai Shah on December 8, 2023, was aghast that despite its order the judicial officer took note of a plea of the investigating officer and remanded him in police custody for interrogation.
On the role of police inspector Raval of Vesu Police Station in Surat, it had said his plea for police custody of Shah during currency of the interim protection granted to him was "in sheer defiance of this court's order" and "tantamount to contempt on the face of the record".
The bench held them guilty of having committed contempt of its order of December 8, last year.
(With PTI inputs)
Also read: Firing outside Punjabi singer AP Dhillon's house in Canada's Vancouver: Reports
