IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1066 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 10.1.2008 Amrik Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Chanchal K.Singla, Advocate vs. Ashwani Kumar, SHO & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Vaneet Sharma, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) These contempt proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner alleging that despite an order dated 14.6.2007 passed by this Court in Crl.Misc.No.3772-M of 2007 granting him ad-interim pre-arrest bail, the respondents who were then posted as SHO and Sub Inspector respectively at Police Station, Ajnala District Amritsar, refused to obey the said order and rather kept him in custody after arrest till he was ordered to be released by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 22.6.2007 (Annexure P-3). In response to the show cause notice the first respondent has already filed his reply/affidavit whereas the second respondent has also filed his reply/affidavit today in Court which is taken on record. Both the respondents have taken a plea that certified copy of the ad-interim pre-arrest bail order dated June 14, 2007 was never shown to C.O.C.P. No.1066 of 2007 -2- them by the petitioner nor was it produced before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 21.6.2007 when his police remand was taken. It is alleged that it was only on 22.6.2007 when the petitioner was produced before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate that passing of the above-stated ad interim order by this Court was disclosed and immediately thereafter he was released under the orders of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed on 22.6.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, vehemently denies the plea taken by the respondents. According to him, a certified copy of the order dated 14.6.2007 was obtained on 15.6.2007 itself and it was in complete disregard thereto that the petitioner was arrested by the respondents on 20.6.2007. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, I am fully satisfied that the respondents refused to release the petitioner on interim bail on 20.6.2007 deliberately and wilfully even though the order granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by this Court was brought to their knowledge. No prudent man whose liberty was protected by this Court and had already obtained a certified copy of the order would hide the same at the time when he is being arrested. The afterthought plea taken by the respondents, therefore, cannot be believed and is hereby rejected. Having held so, this Court is inclined to issue show cause notice to the respondents as to why they be not suitably sentenced. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that instead of giving any further explanation, the unconditional apology tendered by he respondents as incorporated in their respective affidavits C.O.C.P. No.1066 of 2007 -3- may be accepted. In order to highlight the mitigating circumstances, learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 has rendered 30 years of service and he is at the verge of retirement on superannuation. It is also contended that the petitioner's co-accused as well as the petitioner were apparently arrested in order to protect the rights of a hapless woman. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as highlighted on behalf of the respondents, I am of the view that it would be too harsh to award any civil imprisonment to the respondents. The more effective and appropriate course would be to compensate the petitioner in monetary terms whose liberty was jeopardized by the respondents in utter disregard to the protective order passed by this Court. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, this petition is disposed of by awarding a costs of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner which shall be equally shared by both the respondents. They are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner by way of a demand draft within two weeks, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to get these proceedings revived so as to suitably sentence the respondents for civil imprisonment. Disposed of. Rule discharged. January 10, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE