Contempt proceedings require specific proof of procedural non-compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines during arrest or detention.

The applicant, a farmer and political leader, alleged that on May 20, 2020, after being released on bail from Pradyumnanagar Police Station, he was lured back under the pretext of providing thumb impressions

He was subsequently taken to the Office of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot, where Respondent No. 1 (DCP) and Respondent No. 2 (PI) allegedly thrashed him, causing substantial injuries

Despite complaints to the Magistrate and higher police authorities, no FIR was initially registered

While the initial interim report denied the incident, the final report dated February 7, 2022, found that medical certificates supported the allegations of custodial atrocity

Consequently, an FIR was registered on January 13, 2023

However, the investigating officer later submitted an “A” Summary report, concluding that while an offence was committed, there was insufficient evidence to identify the offenders

The court primarily considered Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines "civil contempt" as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court

It relied on the landmark judgment of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, specifically paragraphs 35 and 36, which laid down 11 mandatory requirements for police personnel to follow during arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence

Paragraph 36 of D.K. Basu explicitly states that failure to comply with these requirements renders the concerned official liable for contempt of court

The Court examined whether the specific procedural safeguards mandated by D.K. Basu (such as preparing an arrest memo, right to inform a relative, and medical examination every 48 hours) were violated in a manner that constitutes contempt

The Court observed that although an FIR had been registered following an internal inquiry that acknowledged injuries, the subsequent investigation resulted in an "A" Summary report due to a lack of identifiable evidence against the specific respondents

The Court determined that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie foundation showing a direct violation of the 11 requirements listed in D.K. Basu

The Bench reasoned that since a criminal investigation into the incident had already been initiated and was subject to judicial scrutiny before the Magistrate (JMFC), the heavy burden of proving "willful disobedience" for a contempt action was not met

The Court dismissed the application and discharged the notice

The Court granted the applicant liberty to contest the "A" Summary report and raise all contentions regarding the merits of the custodial torture allegations in the pending proceedings before the learned JMFC