IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 31st day of March, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 296 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sanjay Kumar Sharma .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 38/2010, U/s 332, 504, 506, 153A IPC, PS Kotwali, District Dehradun. _______________________________________________________________ March 31, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Heard. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the present accused applicant uttered some filthy words which is highly unbecoming of an Advocate and he has been charged with the allegation that he tried to create differences between two communities. He further submitted that the contempt proceedings have also been initiated against him in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2010 and notice has been issued by this Court. He further argued that as per the proviso appended to Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that the applicant is a practicing Advocate in Dehradun courts and has got no previous criminal history, who is in jail since 31.1.2010. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record; in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Sanjay Kumar Sharma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 31.3.2010 PRABODH 2