^. f^li^^ !e- 6P "•"""^^•:^y IN THE HIQH COURT OP JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G:.^ ^ -3 Contempt petition (Civil)No., / 04 PETITIONERS \f€yy y5--'"^t^'i" .^g?- ^^- ^,'^^ '^" 6?' GONTEMNQR y t« <^ ; 1. Shyamlal , aged 56 years S/o Shlv Shankar Pandey. 2. Shailendra, aged 33 years S/o Shyamlal pandey. Bo-fch R/o Beltukari, Tah. Bilai. garh, &istt. Raipur (G.O.) V E:'R:S ®::'S^ , s...^:.S'.®;a«3@i.i.^?ita-&s;i.jl.<|aE'. L:Si.lXlgar)3:. a^:;;:pcegenfe;^E8'iamadha Distt. Qurg ;CC.G.}!. . • ; PETIT^ON^^ U/S 'lRrS^OE' CONTEMPTOF GbU&T ftg^ i^i'i" IWIS rsr ^i?iRW, '^ri^CT®, Cff^-^fC'^}^^^ sflii'CT qfl fei^ wran^rgRR; f) SB: Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Mohan SHrivastava. J. —- L 31-10-2011 Shri H. V. Sharma, counsel for-Ai^ applteants. Shri M. K, Bhaduri, counsel ft)r r^spondentfcontemnor. Heard. This contempt petifen has been passed in Criminal Case No. 131 of200^ produced the applicante before the S| underSection 151, 107, 116(3) oftheC) pleased to issue notice to the applicanl^ to show cause as to why appropriate orders requiring the applicants to fumi^l not be taken and the case was directe^l on the same day, the teamed Magistr^l W^RtT •EiF!?JT ii fe3T rfsfr^iC ^- ?^fiTf ST^'1 filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent while eXercising judicial flinction in the capacity as Executive Magistrate, committBd willful disobedier|ce of his own order dated 19-03-2002 (State vs. Shyamlal and others) Leamed counsel for the appl^sants submitted ttiat the police had D.M., Bitaigarh along with the report F.P.C., upon which, the Magistrate was h bond and for keeping surety shoutd to be listed on 30-03-2002. However, te acting in vblation of his own order requiring the applicante to furnish bonysurety for his release on bait as they were produced by the Poltee in custod jail. Learned counset for the applfc^nts submitted that by doing so, the respondent has committed witlful disob^dience of his own prder. On the other hand, learned cou applicants were produced in custDdy |isel for ttie respondent submits that the (aefore the Magistrate and the tearned the same was rejected and later on, o|' Magistrate issued release order in fa' allegations;we accepted, at the best,| before him and sent the applicants to Magistrate passed an order on 19-03-^002 requiring the appticants to file their reply against the proposed action. He )}irther submits that when the applicants had lurnished bail bonds/surety, the M^gistrate da not find it satistactory and the same day, when satisfactory bail bonds&urety were tumished, the s^me was accepted and the tearned our of ttie applicants. Even if all the it could be a case of illegal order or vmVR ^Ssv ^WIM,nsws— FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. '"'»».Sn-s^ I-HC—78 aiT^T-w^lN? iwsn^rwTH; Tumane 4- 'ysi -^wm^, •®?rhns,'fsRn^r o •'•(t*iCTr«>Hicb •W^T'T??? ('^orf^il^ET) WW^fsaan^i 2_. WI. 200 "bl<<frt4-l WWl •? feizl <fa^|< ^'aiRrosn^r proceedings and not a case of willful| disobedience of his own order. Order dated 19-03-2002 passed by Ihe leam^d Magistrate required the applicants to show cause as te> why the applicant^ be not directed to furnish security for keeping peace. It appears that simultai requiring Ihe applicants to fumish ba were produced befbre the MagistratB| leously, the Magistrate passed an order il bondfeurety for their release as they in custody. 1 am unable to accept the submission <of leamed counsel for l^e applicants that the aftsrestated act committed by the respondent amoun^ fo willful disobedience, irrespective of whether proceedings, which were dra(|m requiring the applicants to fumish bail bond/surety for fheir retease by pa^sing order dated 19-03-2002, were in accordance with law or not It is diffi passed by the Magistrate is contempt bult for this Court to hold that the order ious by disobeying his own order. Accordingly, I do not find aify merit in this petition. The petitton is therefore liable to be dismissed ai|d is hereby dismissed. It is however observed ftat this Court has not conjimented upon the tegality and validity of the orders and proceedings, under|which, the appticants were required to furnish bail bond and surety and it <|iould be open for the applicante to take such remedy as may be availabte tifi them under the law for any grievance, which they may have suffered in ttie ^ye of law. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge <t,