1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2009. IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3199 OF 2009 Anil Wamanrao Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. P. S. O. Ghatanji & Ano. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M. I. Dhatrak & R. P. Joshi Adv for petitioner. Shri T. N. Kankale AGP for respondent-1. Shri De Adv for respondent-2. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 17 th NOVEMBER, 2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. This application has been filed for taking action for contempt against Additional Sessions Judge Shri P. S. Tarare. The petitioner had applied to this Court in Criminal Application No. 3199 of 2009 for anticipatory bail. It was alleged that petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code read with 2 Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the said application for anticipatory bail came up before this Court this Court passed an order granting temporary bail to the present petitioner. It was directed that in case of his arrest he shall be released on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount and the said temporary bail granted by the Court was to be in force till 25.09.2009. In the meanwhile the petitioner was granted an opportunity to appear before the concerned Judge and to surrender before him. Concerned Sessions Judge was directed to consider the application for bail, if any submitted to him and to decide the same on its merits. It is alleged that the petitioner appeared before the Sessions Judge on 18.09.2009. Said Sessions Judge took the petitioner in custody and issued notice to the State returnable on 19.09.09. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has committed a breach of the order 3 and has thus committed a contempt by taking the petitioner in custody. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that since the petitioner was granted a temporary bail upto 25.09.09 Sessions Judge had no right to take the petitioner in custody and therefore the learned Sessions Judge has committed contempt. Statement has no force. If the order is read as a whole it is apparent that petitioner was only granted time to appear before the learned Sessions Judge until 25.09.09. He chose to appear on 18.09.09. As soon as he appeared before the Sessions Judge and surrendered, Sessions Judge had no other option but to take him in custody. I do not find that the Sessions Judge had committed any contempt of court. Notice therefore is discharged. JUDGE svk