[Cites 31, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Palabhai Rambhai Aambalia vs Jaydeepsinh Sarvaiya, Deputy ... on 2 April, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 11/02/2026
Pronounced On : 02/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 554 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
PALABHAI RAMBHAI AAMBALIA
Versus
JAYDEEPSINH SARVAIYA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Opponent(s) No. 3
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1.Heard learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik for
the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Virat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Popat for respondent nos. 1 and 2, learned
advocate Mr. Chintan K. Gandhi for respondent
no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent State.
2.This application is filed to initiate the
proceedings of contempt under section 2(b) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (For short
"the Act of 1971") against the respondents
for alleged conscious, willful and repeated
defiance of order dated 18.12.1996 passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in
(1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416 whereby
Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions
to the police/investigating officer to keep
in mind and follow up the requirements both
before and after a person is arrested.
3.The applicant initially preferred Criminal
Misc. Application No.12780/2020 which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
disposed of by order dated 08.07.2021 with a
liberty to the applicant to move an
application alleging civil contempt.
4.Brief facts of the case are that the present
applicant is a farmer based in Devbhumi
Dwarka and President of Farmers Wing of
Gujarat Congress Pradesh Samiti representing
Indian National Congress.
5.It is the case of the applicant that pursuant
to an FIR against the applicant, the
applicant was called to the Pradyumnanagar
Police Station, on 20.05.2020, in order to be
released on bail. After the applicant was
granted bail from the Pradyumnanagar Police
Station, while returning, he was called back
for giving Thumb Impression and after the
applicant went back to the very Police
Station, he was taken to office of the Police
Commissioner, Rajkot City by police
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
personnel. It is further the case of the
applicant that, in the premises of the office
of Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, the
applicant was held against his wish against a
tree by two Police officers being, the
Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner of Police
and the Respondent no.2 Police Inspector who,
brutally thrashed the applicant due to which
the applicant received substantial blows on
the buttocks and other lower parts of the
body. It is the case of the applicant that,
there was no reason for Respondent-Police to
beat the applicant in the premises of the
office of the Commissioner of Police that too
while the applicant was in the custody of
respondent-police.
6.It is the case of the applicant, that
thereafter, on 21.05.2020 at about 10 A.M.,
different cases were registered against the
applicant under Section 107 and Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. Thereafter, on the same day, the
applicant was produced before the Executive
Magistrate and the Magistrate had directed
the Police to take the applicant to the
Rajkot Civil Hospital for treatment. It is
also the case of the applicant that the
applicant had moved an application intimating
the Magistrate that he had been
beaten/tortured while in custody but no
action was taken by the Executive Magistrate
against the said application.
7.Thereafter, the Doctor at the Civil hospital,
Rajkot suggested the applicant to get
admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient
for receiving treatment. However, as the
applicant wanted to get treated at a private
hospital he was once again taken to the
office of the Executive Magistrate
(Mamlatdaar) by the police for obtaining
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
permission regarding the same. It is the case
of the applicant that again this time he had
moved a written application before the
Magistrate alleging torture at the hands of
the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 while he was in
custody. However, neither any order was
passed by the Magistrate on the said
application nor any action was taken by the
Magistrate and the Magistrate permitted the
applicant to take treatment from one Madhuram
Hospital.
8.It is the case of the applicant that on
24.05.2020, the applicant along with few
other people approached the Pradyumnagar
Police Station with a written complaint
against the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 alleging
the commission of cognizable offences.
However, the Respondent No. 3 refused to
register an FIR in furtherance to the
complaint disclosing commission of cognizable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
offences. Thereafter the applicant approached
the office of the Commissioner of Police,
Rajkot District with the same complaint
alleging torture against the Respondent Nos.
1 & 2, however, neither did he receive any
reply from the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot
District against his complaint, nor the FIR
was registered in furtherance of the
complaint.
9.It is the case of the applicant that
thereafter, he approached the office of the
Director General of Police, Gandhinagar,
State of Gujarat and a letter was addressed
to the office of the Director General of
Police, State of Gujarat in this regard
stating that they would visit the DGP's
office on 8.6.2020. However, on the said date
the police personnel from Sector 21,
Gandhinagar, detained the applicant under
Sections 68 and 69 of the Gujarat Police Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
It is also the case of the applicant that he
was made to sit in the office of Director
General of Police, Gandhinagar, State of
Gujarat till 7.30 PM, and then released.
10. It is the case of the applicant that
despite repeated applications, request,
letters, complaints etc., the respondent
Police has failed to take any action in
pursuance to the complaints addressed by the
applicant to both the Commissioner of Police,
Rajkot District and the Respondent No.3
herein. Further, no investigation had been
initiated in this regard and except that the
statement of the applicant came to be
recorded by the concerned Police officer
somewhere around in July 2020. However,
subsequent to recording of the said
statement, no further action had been taken
in this regard and the Respondent officers
have failed to register an FIR despite the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
allegations of commission of cognisable
offences by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who
have clearly violated the requirements laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of D.K. Basu (supra) for custodial
violence and torture.
11. It is the case of the applicant that due
to total non-action on part of the
respondent-police authorities, the applicant
approached this Court by way of preferring
Special Criminal Application No. 3177/2020
and vide order dated 4.8.2020 this Court
granted liberty to move an application under
the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. Thereafter, the applicant moved
Criminal Misc. Application No. 12780/2020 and
vide order dated 8.7.2021, this Court granted
the applicant, liberty to move the present
application for Civil Contempt under Section
2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
12. This Court issued notice dated
02.09.2021 and thereafter the matter
proceeded from time to time. On 08.02.2022,
it was reported by learned Public Prosecutor
Mr. Mitesh Amin that Commissioner of Police
would take appropriate steps pursuant to the
report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police. It appears that various dates were
given by this Court to place on record the
report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-2, Rajkot city which was ultimately
placed on record on 23.10.2023. Thereafter
the matter was proceeded on merits.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik submitted
that decision of the police in not
registering the complaint despite allegations
disclosing commission of cognizable offences
is unlawful and bad in law inasmuch as no
investigation was conducted in furtherance to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the serious allegations as alleged in the
complaint, nor any statement of the applicant
was recorded for a long time and the
statement was recorded only in the month of
July, 2020.
14. It was submitted that the allegations of
custodial torture are serious in nature in
view of doctrine of parens patriae i.e. the
duty to protect those who are under one's
protection. It was submitted that the
applicant was under the protection of
respondent no.3 police station and on their
watch, the applicant was taken to the office
of Police Commissioner, Rajkot City and
thrashed in the most horrific manner. It was
therefore, submitted that considering the
commission of offence of custodial torture by
respondent nos. 1 and 2 in violation of the
guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of D.K. Basu (supra), as per paragraph
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
nos. 35 and 36 of the said decision, the
respondents are liable to be punished under
the provisions of the Act of 1971.
15. The applicant has filed additional
affidavit placing on record the following
facts:
1) During the pendency of this proceeding,
pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
12.02.2025, investigation into FIR against
the police officer and personnel is concluded
and "A" Summary has been submitted. It was
submitted that "A" Summary report is placed
on record in order to apprise the Court as
the said summary is also produced before the
learned JMFC, Rajkot.
2) It was pointed out that by order of the
Division Bench dated 17.09.2020 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.12780/2020, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Police Commissioner of Rajkot City was
directed to entrust inquiry/investigation
into the application/complaint of the
applicant about police atrocity in the
custody by an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot.
3) The first interim report dated
29.09.2020 was submitted by the then
Investigating Officer Mr. Manoharsinh N.
Jadeja, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2
Rajkot city, stating that prima facie the
incident of custodial violence as complained,
has not taken place and thereafter final
report dated 07.02.2022 by Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Rajkot City
Mr. Manoharsinh N. Jadeja was submitted by
the office of Police Commissioner, Rajkot
through office of the learned Public
Prosecutor stating that medical history and
medical certificate submitted by the doctors
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
support the allegations of custodial atrocity
against the applicant. It was pointed out
that thereafter further report dated
15.01.2023 was placed before the Court by an
affidavit dated 07.08.2023 by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Rajkot city
Mr. Sudhirkumar Desai through the learned
Public Prosecutor disclosing that the
Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City by an
order dated 20.02.2022 directed registration
of an FIR against the erring police officers
and personnel for police atrocity based on
final report dated 07.02.2022.
4) It was submitted that FIR dated
13.01.2023 was registered at Pradhyuman Nagar
Police station of Rajkot City for the
offences punishable under sections 342, 323,
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and two
unknown police personnel of Rajkot city.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
5) On 24.07.2023, further report was
forwarded to office of the learned Public
Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer Mr.
Bhargav Pandya, Assistant Commissioner of
Police wherein it was reported that
investigation is going on and except taking
statements of accused police officers, no
further progress has taken place.
6) Thereafter by order dated 12.12.2025,
this Court directed the status report on the
investigation on the FIR and identification
of the remaining two accused in the backdrop
of report dated 24.07.2023.
7) Thereafter the Investigating Officer Ms.
Radhika Bharai, Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Western Zone, Rajkot City submitted
"A" Summary report dated 26.03.2025 observing
that sufficient evidence against the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
is not available and therefore, "A" Summary
report is submitted which means that offence
has been committed but the offenders are
unknown.
16. In support of his submissions, learned
advocate Mr. Yagnik has referred to and
relied upon the following decisions for
custodial violence and atrocities:
1) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and
others reported in (1978) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 494.
2) Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi
Administration reported in (1980) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 526.
3) Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,
Union Territory of Delhi and others reported
in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 608.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
4) Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and another
reported in (1983) 4 Supreme Court Case 141.
5) Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v.
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and
others reported in (1983) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 124.
6) Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India
reported in (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 82.
7) Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K and
others reported in (1985) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 677.
8) Balram Singh v. Bhikam Chand Jain and
others reported in (1985) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 246.
9) Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
and another reported in (1989) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 494.
10) Sunil Gupta and others v. State of Madhya
Supreme Court Cases 119.
11) State of Maharashtra and others v.
Supreme Court Cases 373.
12) Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera
(Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid
Committee) v. State of Orissa and others
reported in (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746.
13) Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. and
others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 565.
14) Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
others reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 260.
15) Citizens for Democracy through its
President v. State of Assam and others
reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases
16) D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. reported in
(1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416.
17) Lok Adhir Sangh v. State of Gujarat
reported in 1998 (1) GLR 613.
18) Bachiben Naranbha v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2007 (3) GLR 1918.
19) Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka
reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263.
20) Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
Chhatisgarh and others reported in (2012) 8
Supreme Court Cases 1.
21) Balwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police
and others reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 801.
22) Jahirmiya Rehamumiya Malek v. State of
Gujarat [Judgment dated 19.10.2023 rendered
in Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt)
No.1067 of 2022].
23) Ajay Raydhanbhai Kumbharwadiya (Boricha)
v. State of Gujarat reported in 2023(3) GLH
24) Somnath v. State of Maharashtra and
others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 338.
17. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.
Virat Popat appearing for respondent nos.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
and 2 heavily relied upon the Statement of
"A" Summary submitted by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police before the JMFC
against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and
pointed out that there is no material against
the said respondents for the alleged offences
and there is no prima facie evidence on
record shown by the applicant that the
respondents are involved in any police
atrocity upon the applicant.
18. It was submitted that the matter is
pending before the learned JMFC for
adjudication upon the complaint filed
pursuant to the order passed by the
Commissioner of Police on the basis of final
report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police.
19. It was submitted that in view of such
facts emerging from the record, there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
prima facie case against the respondents so
as to initiate proceedings of contempt under
the provisions of Act of 1971 for alleged
violation of directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued in case of D.K. Basu
(supra).
20. In support of his submission, learned
advocate Mr. Virat Popat referred to the
following decisions:
1) Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others
reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 549.
2) Abdul Hameed v. Government of India
reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 655.
3) Basawaraj and another v. Special Land
Supreme Court Cases 81.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
4) Smt. Arifa & Ors. v. Abhiman Apartment
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others
[Judgment dated July 14, 2025 rendered in
Special Leave Petition (C) @ Diary No.14976
of 2024].
5) Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed
Hasibur Rahaman and others reported in (2001)
2 Supreme Court Cases 739.
6) Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive
Officer and others reported in Assam Roller
Flour Mills Association and another reported
in (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 101.
7) Mohmed Juned Shamsuddin Saiyed and others
v. K.C. Kapoor, Principal Secretary and
others [Judgment dated 30.10.2006 rendered in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 164 of 2004
and other allied matters].
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
21. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent State
referred to the guidelines issued by the
Superintendent of Police dated 20.07.2019 and
submitted that in view of such guidelines,
the applicant was called by the CID Crime
Branch and there is no evidence even from the
CCTV footages which were shown to learned
advocate for the applicant so as to find out
whether the applicant was having any injury
on his body after he was brought back from
the office of CID Crime.
22. Learned AGP Mr. Jayswal also referred to
the function and working of CID Crime Branch
to show that the respondents have not
committed any police atrocity as alleged by
the applicant, more particularly, when the
FIR is filed against respondent nos. 1 and 2
and other two unknown persons as per the
order passed by the Commissioner of Police on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the basis of the allegations made by the
applicant. It was therefore, submitted that
the provisions of section 2(b) of the Act of
1971 read with the directions issued by
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K.
Basu(supra), would not be attracted in facts
of the case.
23. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi for
respondent no.3 submitted that no allegations
are made against respondent no.3 and he has
been falsely named by the applicant and
therefore, no proceedings under the
provisions of Act of 1971 can be initiated
against respondent no.3.
24. Having heard the learned advocates for
the respective parties and considering the
facts of the case, it appears that as per the
report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police and as per the medical report
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
obtained by him after a considerable period
of time from the private nursing home at
Madhuram Hospital has come to the conclusion
that there were injuries upon the body of the
applicant before 1 to 4 days of the date of
incident and it was advised to initiate legal
proceedings in the matter. However it is also
emerging from the record that on the basis of
said report dated 07.02.2022 which is placed
on record by the applicant with additional
affidavit, FIR is registered against
respondent nos. 1 and 2 and other two unknown
police persons in which "A" Summary report is
filed and the applicant can take appropriate
action in accordance with law in the said
matter.
25. On perusal of the application as well as
voluminous documents placed on record by the
applicant, the applicant has not been able to
show any prima facie case against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
respondents for the alleged violation of the
directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph no. 35 and 36 of the decision in
case of D.K. Basu (supra) which reads as
under:
"35. We therefore, consider it
appropriate to issue the following
requirements to be followed in all
cases of arrest or detention till
legal provisions are made in that
behalf as preventive measures :
(1) The police personnel carrying
out the arrest and handling the
interrogation of the arrestee
should bear accurate, visible and
clear identification and name
togs with their designations. The
particulars of all such police
personnel who handle
interrogation of the arrestee
must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer
carrying out the arrest of the
arrestee shall prepare a memo of
arrest at the time of arrest a
such memo shall be attested by
atleast one witness. who may be
either a member of the family of
the arrestee or a respectable
person of the locality from where
the arrest is made. It shall also
be counter signed by the arrestee
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
and shall contain the time and
date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been
arrested or detained and is being
held in custody in a police
station or interrogation centre
or other lock-up, shall be
entitled to have one friend or
relative or other person known to
him or having interest in his
welfare being informed, as soon
as practicable, that he has been
arrested and is being detained at
the particular place, unless the
attesting witness of the memo of
arrest is himself such a friend
or a relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and
venue of custody of an arrestee
must be notified by the police
where the next friend or relative
of the arrestee lives outside the
district or town through the
legal Aid Organisation in the
District and the police station
of the area concerned
telegraphically within a period
of 8 to 12 hours after the
arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be
made aware of this right to have
someone informed of his arrest or
detention as soon he is put under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the
diary at the place of detention
regarding the arrest of the
person which shall also disclose
the name of he next friend of the
person who has been informed of
the arrest an the names and
particulars of the police
officials in whose custody the
arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he
so requests, be also examined at
the time of his arrest and major
and minor injuries, if any
present on his/her body, must be
recorded at that time. The
"Inspection Memo" must be signed
both by the arrestee and the
police officer effecting the
arrest and its copy provided to
the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be
subjected to medical examination
by trained doctor every 48 hours
during his detention in custody
by a doctor on the panel of
approved doctors appointed by
Director, Health Services of the
concerned Stare or Union
Territory. Director, Health
Services should prepare such a
penal for all Tehsils and
Districts as well.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
(9) Copies of all the documents
including the memo of arrest,
referred to above, should be sent
to the illaga Magistrate for his
record.
(10) The arrestee may be
permitted to meet his lawyer
during interrogation, though not
throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should
be provided at all district and
state headquarters, where
information regarding the arrest
and the place of custody of the
arrestee shall be communicated by
the officer causing the arrest,
within 12 hours of effecting the
arrest and at the police control
room it should be displayed on a
conspicuous notice board.
36. Failure to comply with the
requirements hereinabove mentioned
shall apart from rendering the
concerned official liable for
departmental action, also render his
liable to be punished for contempt
of court and the proceedings for
contempt of court may be instituted
in any High Court of the country,
having territorial jurisdiction over
the matter. "
26. On perusal of the above directions and
considering the facts of the case, we are of
the opinion that none of the directions are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
violated to initiate the provisions of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the
respondents.
27. The application is therefore, not
entertained with a liberty to the applicant
to raise the contentions in the pending
proceedings before the learned JMFC to
contest the matter on merits as no
ingredients of provisions of section 2(b) of
the Act of 1971 read with directions issued
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K.
Basu (supra) prima facie, are attracted so as
to initiate the proceedings under the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
against the respondents.
28. In view of absence of factual
foundation for invoking the ingredients of
contempt against the respondents, case laws
cited at bar is not dealt with in detail as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/554/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the same would not be applicable in the facts
of the case.
29. Application is accordingly dismissed.
Notice is discharged.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
