As per case facts, the petitioner received interim anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court, with directions to cooperate with the investigation. Despite this, the Investigating Officer arrested him, sought police ... custody remand, and the Judicial Magistrate granted it, leading to the petitioner's detention and alleged torture. Upon completion of remand, he was made to seek regular bail and was illegally detained for an additional period. His complaint of custodial torture was later dismissed by the Magistrate without following due procedure, though this dismissal was later set aside by the High Court. The central legal question was whether the Investigating Officer and the Judicial Magistrate, by their actions of seeking and granting police custody remand despite the Supreme Court's anticipatory bail order, and by improperly handling the torture complaint and extended detention, committed contempt of the Supreme Court's order. Finally, the Supreme Court found the Investigating Officer and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate guilty of gross contempt. It stated that their actions demonstrated flagrant defiance and a biased approach, especially in light of the unambiguous anticipatory bail order and the illegal extended detention. The Court also clarified that any prevailing practice allowing police custody remand despite anticipatory bail, as relied upon by the respondents, is contrary to established law and Supreme Court precedents.