A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court rejected unconditional apologies tendered over the incident in the contempt of court proceedings issued against the two in the case of Suo Motu v. Arvindbhai Shah and anr.
A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court rejected unconditional apologies tendered over the incident in the contempt of court proceedings issued against the two in the case of Suo Motu v. Arvindbhai Shah and anr.
The Bench comprising of Justices Sonia Gokani and NV Anjaria remarked that:
“This being an extremely gross case where there is a direct attempt to contact the Presiding Judge of this court with a clear design to obtain order in favour of the respondent no.1 by camouflage and all possible efforts have been made to interfere with the administration of justice, even if the apology is termed as an qualified and unconditional, accepting the same would amount to compromising with the dignity of the institution.”
It was found that a call was made to the Justice Bela M Trivedi of the High court by one of the two applicants in the case, Vijay Shah to mislead the court. The judge soon directed a probe into the call and after probing the matter, the police found that the call was actually made by some third person named Alfesh R Patel.
Shah alleged that he had got in touch with Patel through his friend Rajesh Solanki and that Patel’s help was enlisted only to help him with smoothening things over with the police given Shah’s apprehension that the Police were treating him too harshly in the case against him. Shah further stated that he was unaware of Patel’s move to call the High Court judge over his anticipatory bail plea in the matter.
Patel, on the other hand, accused Shah and his wife that they told him to make the phone call in exchange for some monetary profit.
Ultimately, however, the inconsistencies in the two versions of the story only served as an additional factor for the High Court to reject the apologies made by both Shah and Patel.
The Court said :
“It is quite apparent from diametrically opposite stands taken by both of them that either of them has not stated the correct facts and one of them is presenting blatant lies. This even at the stage when both the respondent seek apologies, one of them has chosen not to approach the court with clean hands and that also is one very valid aspect not to treat this apology as bona fide.”
