RAM KRISHNA PANDEY Vs. B L PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India nw Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying that this Court should take cognizance of contempt committed by the respondent No. 1 by violating this Courts order dated 12/2/1992. This Court had found a prima facie case of contempt existing and therefore issued notice to the nonapplicant-contemner to show cause why he should not be punished. The non-applicant-contemner has appeared in person and filed reply on 2/7/1992. Though the said reply is not signed by the respondent-contemner, facts contained therein have been taken into consideration.

(2.) Applicant Ram Krishna Pandey claims to be the founder of Kamakhya Shakti Peeth at village Bhardakala, Distt. Durg. He claims to be a devotee of Goddess Kamakhya and earns his living by worshipping the Goddess. The applicant apprehended his arrest by the non-applicant No. 1, who is the officer-in-charge of P.S. Arjunda, having jurisdiction over the village Bhardakala and therefore approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing the application u/s. 438, Cr. P.C. The said application (M. Cr.C. 3897/91) was heard by this Court on 18/12/1991 when this Court ordered that meanwhile it is directed that the accused shall not be arrested during the pendency of this application as till further orders.T The applicant alleges that after the non-applicant -contemner learnt about the grant of anticipatory bail by this Court, threatened him that he will register a new offence every time the High Court grants bail and this will continue as long as the applicant does not fulfil his demands of payment of money. M. Cr.C. 3897191 was heard finally on 12/2/1992 and the ad interim bail granted to the applicant confirmed. The record of the said case does not indicate that any particular statement was given by the non-applicant-contemner or on his behalf in this Court regarding his alleged objectionable activities. The orders of this Court granting anticipatory bail, ad interim or otherwise, did not relate to any particular crime. The case of the non-applicant - contemner however is that since on the date, only Crime No. 106/91 was registered against the applicant, he related the anticipatory bail order to that crime and did not arrest him. The applicant submits that after receiving a certified copy of the order dated 12/2/1992, he went to the police station and informed every one present there about it. The non-applicant contemner was however not present at the police station. It is however common ground that the applicant was not arrested in connection with crime No. 106/91. The case of the applicant is that on 6/4/1992 he was called to the Police Station and therefore he went with his Advocate Shri Nirmal Kumar Kalihari. The applicant thereafter was told by the non-applicant that the High Court bail order would not be able to save him from arrest. The non-applicant -contemner got the applicant arrested and paraded through the town and ultimately taken to the Court of Magistrate for purposes of obtaining his remand in connection with Crime No. 24/92. The Magistrate, while granting remand, directed applicant's released on bail which was done. The case of the applicant is that the crime No. 24192 has been created only to bye pass the order of this Court and to get the applicant arrested inspite of this Courts order. It therefore amounts to intentional violation of this Court's order and therefore a clear case of contempt.

(3.) The non-applicant contemner has however submitted that on. 29/3/1992 one Roshanlal Devangan of Bhilai had lodged a report and on the basis of the said report, Crime No. 24192 u/s. 420 I.P.C. was registered. The non-applicant-contemner has denied all adverse allegations including those which relate to threats by him for sending the applicant to jail inspite of the High Courts order. The reply, as stated earlier, is neither signed nor supported by an affidavit of the non-applicant contemner. The applicant has also filed an affidavit of Nirmal Kumar Kalihari, Advocate of Durg to the effect that on 6/4/1992, he had gone to the police station with the applicant and met the non-applicant-contemner and requested him not to say anything that may undermine the dignity of the Court. According to the Advocate, the non-applicant-contemner granted bail but immediately thereafter got him arrested and paraded handcuffed in the town and taken to the Court of Judicial Magistrate which granted him bail. The affidavit of Shri Nirmal Kumar Kalihari, Advocate, prima facie proves the correctness of statement contacted in the application.