IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1991 of 2009 Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav S/o Sri Chandra Narayan Prasad R/o At.- Court Station Road, Purnea, District-Purnea, Bihar. …. Applicant/appellant. Versus 1. Rabindra Nath Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh R/o Village Ram Balak Nagar, P.O.-Aurahi, District- Purnea, Bihar. 2. The State of Bihar through (Central Bureau of Investigation). …. Contemnors/ Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : None. For the opposite parties : None. ------------- 02. 03.05.2010 The present application for contempt has been filed against the respondent no.1 on the ground that the division bench in paragraph 22 of order dated 02.04.2009 in I.A.No.471 of 2009 though while refusing to suspend/stay the order of conviction of the petitioner had stated that the findings recorded therein are not final and conclusive but only for the present interlocutory matter, yet the said respondent has filed a special leave petition before the Apex Court on 16.04.2009 wherein in paragraph 14 he has stated as follows: “ 14. After grant of bail, the 1st respondent moved the Hon’ble High Court for stay of - 2 - conviction but this prayer was turned down by a judgment dated 02.04.2009. In this detailed judgment, the Hon’ble High Court considered the merits of the case at length and has recorded a finding that the 1st respondent could be said to be habitual killer and criminal. Not only this, the Hon’ble High Court has considered all the arguments raised on behalf of the 1st respondent on the merits of the allegations and held against the 1st respondent. It eludes reason that when on merits the Hon’ble High Court makes such observations against the 1st respondent then how could he have been granted bail. A true typed copy of the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.418/2008 is appended hereto marked Annexure-P/8.” On a perusal of the entire petition, it is manifest that a maladroit effort has been made to initiate a proceeding for contempt against the respondent no.1 where there is none. After perusing the petition in its entirety we really fail to fathom how contempt is committed. The attempt is condemned and decried. The application is accordingly rejected. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)