Bijaykumr Mahanty Vs. Jadu Alias Ram Chandra Sahoo (2003) 1 SCC 644

Y.K Sabharwal and K.G Balakrishnan, JJ 

Fact of the Case :

                 In this case the appellant is a police officer. At the relevant time i.e., on 13-11-1990, he was officer incharge of the police station. It was reported that respondent had assaulted him 30-9-1990, which was the immersion day of Goddess Durga while he was on duty. The case was registered against the respondent.

             In connection with the aforesaid case, the respondent was arrested by the appellant on 13-11-1990 from his resident at 7:30 am . He kk kept in police custody and was produced before the Magistrate on 14-11-1990. The respondent in his respect of this very case had been granted bail by Session Judge ong 6-11-1990. The respondent had obtained certified copy of the order of the bail on 7-11-1990. The respondent was produced before the Magistrate on 14-11-1990 when his Advocate produced a certified copies of the order of Session Judge and thus, ge was released by the Magistrate.

            The only controversy is whether the respondent has produced before the appellant, the certified copy of the order of bail at the time of his arrest. According to the respondent it was produced before the appellant.

            The respondent initiated Contempt proceeding against the appellant in the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court on appreciation of evidence held that copy of the bail order was produced before the appellant who arrested the respondent despite it. The appellant was found guilty of Contempt and was sentenced for civil imprisonment for a period of seven days .

Appeal to the Supreme Court

           The present Appeal was filed Under Section. 19 of the Contempt of Court Act,1971, before Supreme Court.

Decision of Supreme Court :

\       Appeal is dismissed. The charge has been established beyond reasonable doubt  against the appellant and High Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court. It is not possible to accept the apology now rendered by the appellant after the lapse of nearly 12 years. The respondent was depraved of his personal liberty despite Grant of bail by the Session Judge.