This is an application under Section 11 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged disobedience to the orders of the Court against three Officers of the Armad Forces. 2. The petitioner was a Subedar Clerk, at all relevant time attached to 58 Gorkha Training Centre at Happy Valley, Shillong. Later he became an Honorary Lieutenant. In connection with a proposed Court Martial under the Indian Army Act 1950, for short, ''the Act" he was put in closed arrest, for alleged commission of some offences while serving as a personal of the Indian Army. He filed a writ petition against the Court Martial Proceedings being Civil Rule 41 of 1983 and on 24.1.83 obtained an order of stay of the proceedings. The petitioner claims that on 4.2.83 he obtained an order from the High Court directing the respondents to release him from "close arrest" and to allow him to remain in "open arrest". It is averred that the court also directed that if the petitioner desi­red to visit his native place in Kerela his case might be con­sidered by the respondents. He claims that by an order dated 3.3.83 he obtained an order directing the respondent to grant him bail and to permit him to go to Kerala. He has averred that on 11.3.83 a Division Bench of this Court held that Orders were passed on 4.2.83 and 3.3.83 that the petitioner might be allowed to go on bail, but the said orders were not complied with by the respondents. Accordingly a firm order was made by the Court directing that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail on such conditions as might be found necessary "for proceeding against the petitioner". This application for con­tempt was filed on 16.3.83. The petitioner claimed that the Res­pondents disobeyed the orders of the Court passed on 4.2.83. 3.3.83 and 11.3.83. Inspite of the receipt of the order dated 4.2 83 the respondents, it is alleged, kept the petitioner in open arrest. The second grievance is that inspite of the order dated 4.2.83 3.3.83, the respondent vigorously proceeded on with the trial aga­inst the petitioner and did not allow him to go to Kerala. Thirdly, inspite of the order of the court to stay the proceedings of the Court Martial, the respondents kept themselves in readiness to proceed on with the court Martial proceedings. Thirdly, inspite of the order of the court to stay the proceedings of the Court Martial, the respondents kept themselves in readiness to proceed on with the court Martial proceedings. It may be stated that on 21.2.83, the stay order obtained by the petitioner, in respect of the court Martial proceeding, was modified by a Division Beach. The authority was permitted to proceed on with the Court Martial against the petitioner and to take a final decision. However, it was ordered that the final order-could not be implemented till disposal of the writ application. The order was modified, because the period of limitation of six months from the date of retirement of the officer, as pro­vided in Section 123 of "the Act", was going to expire by February 28, 1983. 3. In order to decide whether the acts and conducts of the respondents amounted to disobedience of the orders of the Court, we must remember that one of the most important powers of the Court is its power to give orders, inter-alia, commending a person to do something positive and affirmative or in a negative form restraining him in some way. If a person so ordered 'disobeys' such orders the court has one weapon in its armoury which it can use. It can punish him for contempt of court, either by fine or by imprisonment. In fact disobedience to an order of the Court is "criminal offences" to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On principle it seems to me that in order to be found guilty the contemner must have had a guilty mind some guilty knowledge or intent- "mens rea" as it is called. Proof of the state of mind must be up to the stan­dard required by the Criminal Law. It must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt outstandiag. Whether the requisite mental elements are present in the instant case? Could a person, on perusal of order dated 4.2.83 and 3.3.83 positively and conclusively reach the conclusion that the court affirmatively ordered the respon­dents or anyone of them to do certain things or refrain from doing some act? Have the respondents violated the orders dated 4.2.83, 3.3.83 and 11.3.83? If so, had they had the requisite guilty knowledge or intent? 4. Have the respondents violated the orders dated 4.2.83, 3.3.83 and 11.3.83? If so, had they had the requisite guilty knowledge or intent? 4. In this background let me see whether the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for disobedience to the order of the Court. It is seen that on 4.2.83 a Division Bench of this Court observed that when the Court Martial proceeding had been stayed there was no purpose in keeping the petitioner in “close arrest", he might, therefore be kept in "open arrest". However, the stay order had been modified and the respondents were permitted to proceed on with the Court Martial proceeding and to take decision, that is, to give verdict as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, but they were restrained from implementing or execution the order untill disposal of the Civil Rule. Be that as it may, the order was to the effect there was no purpose in keeping the personnel in 'close arrest' and that at best he might be kept in 'open arrest.' As such, there was no order granting bail to the petitioner. From one kind of arrest he was directed to remain in another form of arrest. Indeed, it was also indicated in the order that if the petitioner desired to visit his native place to see the members of his family, the Commanding Officer could certainly allow his prayer on such undertaking as might be considered just and proper for permitting the petitioner to go to Kerala. Now, it is seen, that there is no order directing that the peti­tioner should be released on bail. The order permitting the petitioner to go to Kerala was passed as the Court considered that the court martial proceedings had been stayed against the petitioner, However, it was not so. Further, the order allowing the petitioner to go to Kerala was a conditional one giving discretion to the respondents to put such conditions as might be found necessary. The next order dated 3.3.83, also does not contain any order granting bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner complained that he was not permitted to go to Kerala by the Respondents. The respondents expressed their difficulties through their counsel. The next order dated 3.3.83, also does not contain any order granting bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner complained that he was not permitted to go to Kerala by the Respondents. The respondents expressed their difficulties through their counsel. It was stated that permission or order allowing the petitioner to go to Kerala could be made by the Officers provided they had power to enlarge him on bail, but there was no such power expressed or implied in "the Act" permitting a person arraigned in a Court Martial proceedings. However, on 3.3.83 the Court ordered that by putting certain conditions the petitioner might be allowed to go to his native place on the basis of the order dated 4.2.83. The petitioner was asked to make an application for permitting him to visit Kerala and the respondents were similarly asked to condider his application and to put such conditions as the C. O. considered just and proper. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner that he was not granted bail nor did the C. O. permit him to go to Kerala. We find that for the first time, the court, by its order dated 11.3.83, directed that the petitioner should be granted bail with conditions and the Court also directed that during the Court Martial proceedings the petitioner should be allowed to engage his counsel and take their advice. It was further ordered that if the petitioner wanted to go to his native place to see the members of his family he should be granted permission to go there and necessary conditions might be imposed by the authority. Thus, it appears that for the first time the High Court specifically ordered the respondents to grant bail to the petitioner. As such, it has been rightly contended by Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents that upon such order the respondents were free to enlarge the accused on bail and permit him to visit Kerala. The Order dated 11. 3. 83 giving a free hand to the respondents to grant bail and to permit the petitioner to go to Kerala was received by Respon­dent No. 4 Lt. Col. R. L. Kaul, on or about March 12. 1983. The officer considered that the order of release on bail was received by them after the arraignment of the petitioner in the court Martial. Col. R. L. Kaul, on or about March 12. 1983. The officer considered that the order of release on bail was received by them after the arraignment of the petitioner in the court Martial. Immediately, the petitioner was released from arrest on conditions set forth in the order dated March 14, 1983. The petitioner was permitted to go to Kerala on the conditions mentioned in the order. 5. It is thus seen that no order granting bail to the petiti­oner was rendered by this Court on 4. 2. 83 or on 3. 3. 83. But there was a direction to permit the petitioner to go to Kerala. The permission could not be accorded nor the liberty granted, unless the petitioner could be released from 'close arrest'. There is no provision in the Army Act, 1950, for granting bail to a person undergoing his trial before a Court Martial. As such when there is no order of the court directing that the petiti­oner should be enlarged on bail the respondents could not give effect to the orders rendered on 4. 2. 83 and 3.3.83. For the first time, the respondents received a positive order directing them to enlarge the petitioner on bail on such terms and condi­tions as might be considered just and proper, by the respondents. It was received by the authority on or about 12. 3. 83 and taking into consideration that the petitioner had already been arraigned before the Court Martial, the authorities mentioned the fact in the order and allowed the petitioner to go on bail, and also permitted him to visit Kerala, putting certain conditions. In Fact the respondents could not have permitted the petitioner to go to Kerala in the absence of a positive direction from the court to grant him bail as they had no power and jurisdiction to allow a personnel arraigned before the court Martial to grant liberty and visit places. But the court could if it desired, grant bail and direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to go to Kerala. But no such specific order was made. But when such a handle was given to the Respondents by the Court in its order dated 11. 3. 83 the respondents faithfully carried out the order. As such, it is difficult to hold that the respondents willfully diso­beyed any of the orders rendered by this Court. But no such specific order was made. But when such a handle was given to the Respondents by the Court in its order dated 11. 3. 83 the respondents faithfully carried out the order. As such, it is difficult to hold that the respondents willfully diso­beyed any of the orders rendered by this Court. The respondents allowed the petitioner to remain in 'open arrest' no sooner did they receive the order of the court to permit him to be kept in open arrest. They enlarged him on bail and permitted him to go to Kerala on such condition as they considered just and proper immediately on receipt of the order of the Court. 6. I do not find that in the orders dated 4. 2. 83 and 3. 3. 83 there was any order to the respondents directing them to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The sum and substance of the order was to keep the petitioner in "Open arrest" instead of "Close arrest". Even in the order permitting the petitioner to visit Kerala, a discretion was left with the officer Commanding to permit the petitioner to go to Kerala on such conditions as it considered just and proper. In order to permit the petitioner to go to Kerala an order of bail granting liberty and freedom from close and/or open arrest was the most important element. It was absent in these two orders. As such, the respondents found that they had difficulties in permitting the petitioner to go to Kerala without a specific order of the court granting bail, which power the respondents has not had under the Army Act, they found it difficult and made it clear and submitted to that effect to the court. Further, the orders were apparently made under the impression that there was no court Martial proceedings against the petitioner. However, there was pending court Martial proceeding against the petitioner at all relevant time and the accused had been arraigned. 7. On perusal of the orders, I find that there was no comm­and or positive order asking the respondents to enlarge the peti­tioner on bail only by the order dated 11. 3. 83, the court directed that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. This order in fact gave a free hand to the respondents to enlarge the petitioner on bail and to allow him to go to Kerala. 3. 83, the court directed that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. This order in fact gave a free hand to the respondents to enlarge the petitioner on bail and to allow him to go to Kerala. Admitt­edly on receipt of this order, Respondent No. 4 granted the petitioner bail and allowed him to go to Kerala. The respond­ents clearly stated that they had no intention or object to dis­obey any order of the Court. They have profound respect for the orders of the court and carried them out faithfully. The crucial question, in a proceeding of this nature, is to see if the contemner had the requisite guilty mind and the state of mind was nothing but to disobey the order of the court, the contempt petition does not depict the said state of minds of the respondents. I have also reason to doubt that when a person is in 'close arrest' or 'open arrest' and arraigned before a court Martial he can not be permitted to travel as he wishes or can the Commanding Officer permit the same. Further, the accused was, at all relevant period, in the custody of the presiding Officer of the Court Martial. There was no order by any court to the presiding Officer and the Members of the Court Martial to permit the petitioner to be enlarged on bail or to permit him to visit Kerala. All these difficult situations being present in the minds of the respondents, at all relevant time, they had to be careful, cautious and cir­cumspect. It appears clear that necessary criminal intent is absent in this case. It appears that any reasonable and prudent Army Officer conversant in law could have understood the orders in the manner as the respondents did. I do not find that the petitioner has brought home a case within the four corners of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act. 8. For the foregoing reasons I hold that there is no merit in the application and accordingly it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.