J<^/ ^. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &) Single Bench CONTEMPT CASE~NO. ^6 3-0f2011 PETITIONER ^^ .-M^ ^y>'(t^^ ISSf^*' • t^A-""6' RESPONDENTS B.D.Pradhan S/o Late Shri M.L. Pradhan, aged abouf 67 years, R/o B-130, Rajklshore Nagar, Phase-2, BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Shri Mansoor Ahmed Chief Judlclal Magistrate District Bllaspur (C.G.) 2. Shri LaUan Pandey Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND 129 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAAND SECTION 12, 15 AND 16 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTSACT 1971 ARISING OUT OF THE ARREST OF THE PETITIOINER ON 26.10.2010 ^ ^ST -^wwtf, yfll'-i'is, Fqciiy^ _....^t..!^.^.<?J)..-_^^.U a»*ii<t»••••—•--••---—-•••—••••••-•^ 200 3:ii*?i'!raqr('^qfgp^q} an^iqiT'RplhT ^V 3TT^T sp^w '^ winir'afttt SIT^I <^i*i^l^^l ^H<-lf tf 'f^'i<i) <.f^^|< ^i'siRmsii^r S8 : Hon^bie Shri Manindra ivionari snnvastava. •i. 06-09-2011 Shri B.D. Pradhan, petitioner |n person. 'his contempt petition has|been fited by the petitioner alieging wiliful disobedience of ordere and directiohs issued by Uie Supreme Court in W.P.(Cr) No.539/86 (D.K.Basu v. State of Wf-B. reported in AIR 1 997 Supreme Court 810). The petitioner in person ^rgued that the petitioner was cited as a prosecution witness and a warrant jof arrest was issued by the Court and in the mornlng of 26/10/2010, respondent |^o.2 - Sub inspector of Poilce, poiice station Sarkanda came to his house with Warrant of arrest issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petiiioner has stat^d that he is a heart patiem and Is requlred to be examined by a medical officer ^efore being taken in custody in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. But the r^quest was tumed down by respondent No.2 and the petitioner was taken in |custody and produced before the Court of respondent No.1. It is contended |at the Supreme Court in the case of D.K-Basu (Supra) has issued ciear guideiine^ in para 36 of its ordsr to the effect that the arrestee should, where he so reque^ts, be also examined at die Sme of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any[ present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. He submits that in view c|f the aforesaid directions, the petitioner shouid have been first subjected to medi^al examination before arrest and having not done so, not onty the arrest is itlegs|l but also ciear disobedience of Uie mandatory guideiines issued by the Supreme pourt. It is aiso alleged ttiat the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrineti under Articie 21 of the Constitution of tnelia have been violated. He aiso submi<s that the provisions of Section 54 and Section 60 A of the Code of Crimlnal Pr<}cedure, 1973 were also vioiated in effec^ng ;f arre§t.- it is aiso submitted that b-^ dismissing the application, the Chief Judicial snB'ftii'^t'iiTgs'iiRi^n.ir; ••"•iq -'•'s/140—2/2011—i,so,ooo. .^ '.^•^^s^fst&s's'ss^a'^s;,! T t''-\ ^:-':- y 'S'sf '^ww»,®Tily'i6,fs|(niyy,< ..&ft.:....(^.^...^lw.:-B.&^li •WI 260 sn^i ^WK (''^ty^i) 3)1%% W ft-ti-i ^sw sn^TsfRNr Deepli TOiiw^wm^i =? Twagistrate has vlolatea ine provisicins unaer Articie iza or ihe Gonsmution of India. The order passed by the Cti application shows that the petitioner required to be examined by the Chief| as the petitioner did not appear befol ttie Court and the petitioner was al^ <^t<rf?1iifhT 'RF^ff ^f f5(^t •^^f< '^siRpTsn^i |ief Judicial Magistrate, rejectmg petitioner's |was eited as prosecution witness and he was IJudicial Magistrate and It further appeare that te the Court, insplte of issuance of summons and baiiabie warrant, warrant of arr^st was issued for his producBon, whte;h was executed by respondent No.2 by arr^ting the petitioner and producing him before o produced in the Court on 22/06/2010 and thereafter, he was released on bail ofi his submission that he is not welt and not in a position to depose before the C|ourt. in the case of D.K.Basu (supra), fhe Supreme Court issued directions in directions were issusd taking cogni^ance of increasing cases of custodfal deatfi and custodia! vioience. Moreover, (he order was issued by respondent No.1 in exereise of its judiciai function in or(ier to secure presence (rf the petitloner vA\o was required to be examined as a| witness and was not appearing instead of summoning and bailabte warrants i^sued. Respondent No.2 only complied with the order passed by respondent No.1|. Ai! other submisslons that hy ^-.-.L aii the cases of arrest or detention. Those arrest was otherwise iltegal are beyond the scope of proceedings in this petition. | In the result, i do not find ^iny merit in this petition and e petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 'iHH^^ftT! r, (IT; ••ma -t S;14&—2/21111—I ,50,000. .-^ Bi?