IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CONTEMPT CASE No.981 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Kalvapalli Koti Reddy S/o. Venkateswara Reddy …. Petitioner AND M. Srinivasa Rao, Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, Satendapalli, Guntur District. …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CONTEMPT CASE No.981 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Crime No.55 of 2009 of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, alleging that inspite of having knowledge of the order dated 23-04- 2009, granting interim stay of arrest of the petitioner in Criminal M.P. No.2491 of 2009 in Criminal Petition No.2667 of 2009 by this Court, the respondent – Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Rural Police Station has effected arrest of the petitioner – A-2 and thereby willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records including the copies of Case Diary in Crime No.55 of 2009, produced by the respondent. 3. A perusal of the records would go to show that the order granting interim stay of arrest of the petitioner – A-2 was granted by this Court on 23-04-2009 in Criminal M.P.No.2491 of 2009 in Criminal Petition No.2667 of 2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner – A-2 along with A-1 and A-5 was arrested on 29-04-2009 and was produced before the learned Magistrate on 30-04-2009 and he was also granted bail on 06- 05-2009. The case diary would also disclose that the arrest of the petitioner – A-2 was duly intimated to T. Govind Reddy on 29-04-2009 under his acknowledgment. There is nothing on record to show that the orders passed by this Court granting interim stay of arrest of the petitioner – A-2 was brought to the notice of the respondent either by A-2 or T. Govinda Reddy, who was intimated about the arrest of the petitioner – A-2 or any other person. In the absence of any material to show that respondent had information and knowledge of passing of an order of interim stay of arrest of the petitioner by this Court by the time of effecting arrest on 29-04-2009, it cannot be said that the conduct of the respondent in arresting the petitioner – A-2 was willful or deliberate and in violation of the orders passed by this Court. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner – A-2 has not made any protest either before the respondent or before the learned Magistrate at the time of remand, bringing to the notice of the respondent or learned Magistrate about passing of the order of interim stay by this Court. 5. In the absence of any material to show that the respondent was aware of the orders passed by this Court on 23-04-2009, it cannot be said that the respondent has resorted to willful violation of the orders of this Court and that the effecting of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent amounts to contempt of the orders of this Court. 6. Under those circumstances, it is held that the allegations made in the affidavit remained totally unsubstantiated and hence no case of contempt is made out against the respondent, warranting any further action. 7. Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ​____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J December 29, 2009 KTL