IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4133 of 2010 RAJESH KUMAR @ MANTU SAO . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner: Mr. Narayan Mishra, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Amanullah, G.A. 4. ----------- 6/ 16/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. The direction in the criminal writ application was to re-calculate the period of detention of the petitioner individually in all the three cases and then pass appropriate orders for remission of sentence, post conviction by taking into account the time period of custody in each case pre conviction. That appears to have been done by Annexure-A to the show cause. Fresh calculation has been made and copy of the order given to the petitioner on 13.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of proper compliance of the order of the Court, the petitioner continues in custody. Learned counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that even after the order was served on him the petitioner appears to have been in no hurry and filed the application nearly two and a half months later. In any event of the matter, in view of the nature of the direction in the writ petition and the fresh order 2 at Annexure-A to the show cause, the correctness of the same by holding further enquiry cannot be made in the contempt jurisdiction. The issue of contention between the parties that Annexure- A or has not been passed in light of the discussion contained in the order of the Writ Court with regard to the law as may be applicable to the petitioner and the stand of the petitioner and that he was being discriminated vis-à-vis others are matters which shall more appropriately have to be considered in the fresh writ application. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)