The Supreme Court stated that its order of December 2023 granting interim bail had clearly left no room for doubts that the protection was absolute, until modified or altered.
“The language of the order was clear and unambiguous, hence, none of the contemnors-respondents could have entertained any doubt in their minds nor was there any scope for the interpretation that the petitioner could be remanded to police custody during the currency of the interim order dated 8th December, 2023,” the Court noted.
If the Investigating Officer (now contemnor) had any genuine and bonafide need to seek police custody, he should have moved the top court first, the Bench said.
“The proper course of action would have been to move this Court for seeking appropriate directions rather than moving the Magistrate by way of the remand application, which was tainted, malicious and a contemptuous act on the face of the record.”
As regards the Judicial Magistrate, the Court said that criminal jurisprudence requires that courts apply judicial mind before passing an order of remand.
Further, since the criminal complaint showed that the dispute was of a civil nature, the Magistrate should not have not ‘toed the line’ of the police and ordered the remand of the accused mechanically.
“Courts are not expected to act as messengers of the investigating agencies and the remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner.”
Pertinently, the Bench underscored that the basis of remand cannot be to obtain a forced confession under the garb of cooperation of the accused.
“We are of the firm opinion that 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 Court said.
Therefore, it found the cop and the judge guilty of contempt of court.
Source: Barandbench
