IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. O.C.P. No. 5 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 10.05.2011 Court on its own motion .... PETITIONER Versus Sunil Sansaniwal, Advocate ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Respondent-contemner in person with his counsel Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) In terms of the notice issued by this Court, affidavit of the respondent-contemner, who is present in Court today, has been taken on record. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent-contemner. In the present case, the District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, made a reference for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent-contemner on the allegation that in bail application No. 22 of 2011, for the grant of regular bail, filed by the respondent-contemner on behalf of accused Dhawan alias Mintu in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, the respondent-contemner did not disclose the factum of pendency of the bail application before this Court, and the said fact came to the notice of the court on 1.2.2011, when on issuance of notice in the bail application, ASI Rajinder Singh appeared in the case and informed that this Crl. OCP No. 5 of 2011 -2- Court vide order dated 25.1.2011 had already granted bail to accused Dhawan alias Mintu. On that information, the bail application, filed by the respondent-contemner, on behalf of the said accused, was dismissed as having become infructuous, and this reference was made. In the affidavit, it has been stated by the respondent-contemner that he moved two bail applications on behalf of the said accused, which were dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, and in the third application, he had mentioned about those two applications, but he was not aware of the application for regular bail filed by the accused before this Court, as no such intimation was given to him by the accused. Due to lack of information given by the accused, the factum of pendency of the said application before this Court could not be mentioned in the application filed before the court of Sessions. It has been stated that the respondent- contemner is practising in the District Courts, Gurgaon, since the year 2006, and the said mistake has cropped up without any intention or malice. He has also tendered unconditional apology before this Court to remain careful in future. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-contemner, the explantion furnished by the respondent is accepted and the contempt proceedings, initiated against him, are hereby dropped. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE May 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE