1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.229 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Advocate Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the contempt petitioners and Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondents. 2. Advocate Shri Kulkarni states that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal bail Application No. 553 of 2008 on 24.7.2008 was not obeyed and, therefore, there is a contempt. 3. It is also stated that the contempt petitioners were not produced before the learned 2 Magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest and a false statement is made by Respondents in the report dated 26.12.2008 filed before the learned Magistrate. 4. So far as other two grounds are concerned, it may not amount to contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and the contempt petitioners will have separate remedy. Liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings is given. 5. So far as disobedience of the order dated 24.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24.07.2008 is concerned, the order reads:- " The applicants are not 3 entitled for anticipatory bail. Although, PSO, Chalisgaon Police Station, Chalisgaon is directed to issue 72 hours notice to the applicants if any offence in connection with death of Sunil Suresh Sonawane is registered against the applicants at Chalisgaon Police Station, Chalisgaon." 6. It is argued before this court that the above quoted order passed does not prohibit arrest of petitioners. On 25.12.2008 the petitioners were arrested in connection with crime that was registered on the same day at about the same time. There was no 4 prohibition to arrest within 72 hours from registration of crime. The contempt petitioners were aware that they were arrested in a particular crime. So they had notice. 06. In the circumstances, there does not appear contempt committed by the Respondents. Hence, contempt petition is dismissed at admission stage. Date:31/08/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cp229.09