Order Cr. Misc. No. 2579 of 1983 was filed on behalf of one Baij Nath Sahani @ Baij Nath Prasad Sahani for grant of anticipatory bail in Motihari P.S. case No. 175 of 1982 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. This bail application came up for admission on 23.3.1983 when one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court granted ad-interim bail to the petitioner till the 12th April, 1983 and directed for the production of the case diary. The matter was again heard on 12.4.1983 and the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 2. It appears that 'Dafeena' is a local Hindi weekly journal which is published is Motihari of which the Editor and Publisher is one Sri Khurshid Alam, Sri Jagdish Vikal is its coeditor and Sri Ramashray Singh is its Honorary Editor. On the 29th March, 1983 in the issue of 'Dafeena' a news appeared with a five column head line as 'Prashasan Asafal' 'Apradh Ki Vijayee'. Under that headline in the five column it was written ‘Karyapalak Abhiyanta Sahani Ki Zamanat Manzoor'. Under that heading it was further stated that Sahani had been granted bail by this Court. It was further commented upon that this act has raised a great question mark and to call this act as an ordinary act would be to deceive one owns if. It was further pointed out that the efforts of the local administration and the police administration by which they had exposed how nine thousand bags of cement had been misappropriated and brought the accused to the dock has failed because of certain small errors and has become a big blotch which cannot be imagined. It was further stated that hundreds of citizens had seen that Sahani had been arrested and was being taken in a white car to the jail when by deceiving the police he escaped and after which actions were taken for the seizure of his properties. It was asked 'was this all a dream of a mad man'. It was further stated that hundreds of citizens had seen that Sahani had been arrested and was being taken in a white car to the jail when by deceiving the police he escaped and after which actions were taken for the seizure of his properties. It was asked 'was this all a dream of a mad man'. The concluding portion which is at page 4 of the journal states: “Yeh Ghatna is Baat Ka Jawalant Saboot Hai Ke Jo Zila Prashasan Bharpur Sakchai Aur Apni Admai Ichcha Tatha Utsah Ka Bawajood Kisi Bharast Padadhikari Ko Kanoon Ke Shikanje Main Nahi Kas Pa Saki Wah Anya Kamjoor Nagrikon Ko Sabal Atyachariyon Ke Changul Se Kaise Bacha Payagee ? Prashn Paida Hota Hai Ke Aaj Ke Is Bharast Jantantra Mein Shaktishali Kaun Hai? Sanwidhan Yaa Sanwidhan Ke Rackchak? Kanoon Yaa Kanoon Ke Bhachhak? Keya Asthaniya Prashasn Apni Shakti Aur Imaandari Ke Dhawast Hoti Is Minar Ki Durdasha Dekh Bhawisye Mein Kisi Bharastchari Ko Kanoon Ke Katghare Mein Khada Karne Ka Paryas Ker Sakenge ?” It may further be stated that a copy of this publication was sent to one of the Hon'ble judges by registered post. Thereafter the matter was examined and put up before a criminal Bench for passing such orders as it considers necessary. On 15.5.1983 on a consideration of the notes put up by the office and after going through the contents of the news a Bench of this court issued notices on Sri Khurshid Alam, Sri Jagdish Vikal and Sri Ramshray Singh to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. They were also asked to boo present personally in Court. In pursuance to such notices the three alleged contemners have appeared in court and filed their show cause. After this matter was heard in part the case was again adjourned for two days to enable the alleged contemners to file a supplementary affidavit which they have done. All the three alleged contemners in the very beginning in their show cause applications have tendered unqualified and unconditional apologies for their acts of commission which amounted to scandalous comments against this Court or which tended to scandalise or lower the authority of this court. In the show cause some attempt has been made to justify the headlines which we have referred above. In the show cause some attempt has been made to justify the headlines which we have referred above. It is not necessary to consider the bead lines, referred to above, in detail beyond stating that it tends to create the impression that the administration was unsuccessful and the accused was successful because the accused had been granted bail. That apart we have already referred in some details to what has been published under that heading. There is to begin with a grave error in stating that the accused had been granted bail. The accused bad been given, in that case, only an ad-interim relief and the anticipatory bail was for a little more than two weeks only and that for the period in which the records would come to this court. This was, in the circumstances, that while the accused in that case had stated that he had not been arrested. On behalf of the State it has been urged that he has been arrested and then managed to escape. Ultimately on the 12th April, 1983, on a consideration of the matter the application was permitted to be withdrawn and the accused was directed to surrender. 3. Under Section 2(c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by sayings, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or doing of any other act what so ever which...scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court. From the details that I have given above the alleged contemptuous writing it is obvious that an attempt was made in it to show that although after arduous attempts by the local administration and the local police in unearthing the crime and prima facie of charging an individual with the crime, all had failed because bail had been granted by this court. The article tends to bring to the notice of the public that such an act was frustrating to the administration and the people as a whole inasmuch as it was stated that hundreds of citizens had seen the accuser escaping from custody. The article tends to bring to the notice of the public that such an act was frustrating to the administration and the people as a whole inasmuch as it was stated that hundreds of citizens had seen the accuser escaping from custody. Those who published this article did not know that at that stage the allegation of the State that the accused had escaped was still under investigation by the court and no final pronouncement had been made upon it. Reading the article as a whole was are pursuaded to the conclusion that it had scandalised or at least tends to scandalise or lower the authority of this court which should not have been done in this case. In coming to this conclusion we are conscious of the fact that justice is not a cloistered virtue and it must suffer the scrutiny of ordinary man. But that scrutiny must be fair, must be rational and must be respectful. In this, we are constrained to bold that all the three elements were lacking and there was an attempt to criticise the Court on assumption which were not inexistence and/or not in knowledge of the court. Courts administer justice not on the basis of what it might be alleged has been seen by a number of persons but on the basis of evidence and materials brought before it in accordance with procedure established by law and in the application for anticipatory bail on behalf of Sahani that is what the court was attempting to do when it had granted provisional bail to Sahani for about two weeks on 23rd March, 1983. It has therefore, to be held that the three contemners by publishing the news have committed criminal contempt of court. 4. However, as we have pointed out earlier all the three contemners have expressed both in writing and orally through their learned counsel that they tender unqualified and unconditional apology to this court. In the show cause and the supplementary show cause filed by them it has further been stated that after 29th March, 1983 due to certain unavoidable circumstances this journal did not appear for quite some time and the next issue that appeared in June and was a combined publication for the 31st May and 7th June, 1983, a contradiction has published the heading of which is 'Bhool Sudhar: Ek Aspastikaran'. It appears that by then to their credit they had find out all the facts of the case and they have stated that the earlier news was to an extent erroneous and that the High Court had only granted ad-interim relief which on a fuller consideration after all the materials had cancelled the interim relief and permitted the application for anticipatory bail to be withdrawn with a direction to the accused to surrender. Taking into consideration the unconditional and absolute apologies tendered by three contemners and the fact that they had published a clarification before this matter was taken up we think it would be enough if they are warned that they should be more carefnl in future in publishing such news and should verify the facts before and not take it from the mouth of some one particularly the party interested as they have stated in the edition published subsequently. With the above warning issued to them the rule is discharged and the matter is dropped. Order accordingly.