JUDGMENT 1. - An FIR No. 269/85 was lodged at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar against Mangi Lal Saini, hereii.after referred to as the 'petitioner', under section 379/411 IPC. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this court vide its order dated 8.1-1986. Inspite of the fact that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court, he was arrested by Harpal, Investigating Officer on 13.1-1986 and was produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile), 1st Class, Rajgarh, Camp Laxmangarh (Alwar) on 14-1-1981. The police sought remand for 15 days for accused Mangilal (petitioner) The Magistrate, while considering the application for remand, hid seen the original diary of the case and came across a certified copy of the order passed by this Court which was there. It was noted in the case diary that it was not original order, the Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner and issued notice to the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh to show cause as to why inspite of the order of this Court, petitioner was arrested In pursuance of the notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, Har Sahai, Station House, Officer, P.S. Rajgarh filed a reply, and after perusal of the reply filed by Har Sahai, the notice was also issued to Harpal, Investigating Officer and he was directed to file the reply of the notice on 8-2,1986. Notice could not be served on Harpal on several dates of hearing and therefore, notice had to be issued several times. Ultimately, he appeared in the court and filed a reply to the notice on 9-5-1986, and sought time to file some mare documents in support of the reply. The matter was adjourned on several dates of hearing and ultimately on 20th September, 1986, petitioner informed the Magistrate that he had started proceedings for contempt in this Court, therefore, no further action was taken by the Magistrate, and decision of this Court, is awaited. 2. The present petition was filed before this court on 23-9-1986, and it was placed before Horehte Mr. Justice M B Sharma who had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 84-198a. who issued notices to Har Sahai Meena, Station House Officer, Police Station Rijgarh, and Hatpal, A.S.I. as to why they should not be punished for disobeying the orders of this Court, and thereby committing contempt of this court. Justice M B Sharma who had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 84-198a. who issued notices to Har Sahai Meena, Station House Officer, Police Station Rijgarh, and Hatpal, A.S.I. as to why they should not be punished for disobeying the orders of this Court, and thereby committing contempt of this court. The case was ordered to be listed for filing the reply on ..0th October, 1986. Both the contemners appeared through their counsel and sought time to file the reply. Har Sahai was directed to keep the Roznamcha dated 13-1-1986 of Police Station Rajgarh, ready for perusal of the Court. On 10-11-1986, learned Single Judge, (Hon'ble M B. Sharma J.) after hearing the parties, ordered that the file may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a division bench to initiate contempt proceedings and to take proper action so that such instances are not repeated and majesty of law is maintained Hon'ble the Chief Justice ordered that the case be listed before the division bench (criminal) according to roster. 3. The petition was admitted by the division bench on 8.1-1987 and notices were directed to b:t issued to Har Sahai and Harpal as to why they should not be punished for committing contempt of this court. Since both the contemners were present alongwith their Counsels, therefore, notices were not issued. Harsahai had filed reply and Harpal sought time to file reply Both the contemners were directed to be present in person in Court. The original Roznamcha was ordered to be kept in safe custody of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), and file of the Magistrate (Special Mobile Magistrate), Rajgarh was sent for. 4. The petitioner filed some additional affidavits dated 17-12-1986 and 19-1-1987 and the contemners were given time to file reply of those affidavits, if they so liked. The contemners filed some additional reply and affidavits as also some documents. After hearing submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we thought it proper that opinion of the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, should he sought regarding the alleged addition, alteration and interpolations in the Roznamcha dated 13-1-86, particularly Entry at No. 440. After receipt of the report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the contemners v ere given further opportunity and they were heard at length again. 5. After receipt of the report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the contemners v ere given further opportunity and they were heard at length again. 5. Har Sahai, SHO, in his reply filed on 5-1-1987, to the contempt petition has submitted that he is the Station House Officer at Police Station Rajgarh, where FIK No. 269/85 was registered against the petitioner under section 379 and 411 IPC, and that investigation of the case was handed over to Harpal, ASI. On 13-1-1986 at 6.30 A M. he left the Police Station in connection with investigation of another case No. 7/86, and charge of the Police Station Rajgarh was handed over to Marnal ASI. vide Roznamcha Entry No. 426. 011 13 1-86, during his absence, Harpal AS1, left the Police Station Rajgarh at 12.30 Y.M. to effect the arrest of the petitioner vide Roznamcha Entry No. 439. Harpal, ASI after effecting the arrest of the petitioner, returned to the Police Station at 2 PW vide Roznamcha Entry No. 440 and there are serious interpolations in the Roznamcha Entry No 440 which will be clear from the hare perusal of the original Roznamcha. According to the Roznamcha Entry No 442, Harsahai returned at the Police Station at 2.45 Y.M. on 13-1.86. There is some interpolation in Entry No. 442 also and the time 2.45 PM. has been changed to 2.08 PM. and according to Harsahai, this interpolation was also made by Harpal. ASI. and a report to this effect was made by Harpal to the Dr. Supdt. of Police, Rajgarh on 27-1-1986, a copy whereof has been enclosed with the reply as document No. 5. He has further submitted that he was not aware of the arrest of the petitioner till 14-1-1986. On 14-1.1986, Harpal, ASI produced the petitioner before the Special Magistrate Mobile, kaigarh and therefore, he was not responsible either for arresting or for producing the petitioner before the Magistrate, seeking Judicial remand for 15 days. 6. In his reply, Harsahi has further submitted that he did not flout any order of this court in any manner and that he has the highest regard for the orders passed by this court. and further that he is duty bound to comply with the order passed by this Court and other courts. 7. 6. In his reply, Harsahi has further submitted that he did not flout any order of this court in any manner and that he has the highest regard for the orders passed by this court. and further that he is duty bound to comply with the order passed by this Court and other courts. 7. After this reply, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 19-1-1987 wherein he asserted that when Harpal came to his house to arrest him at about 2 PM. he was shown the certified copy of the order dated 8.1-198 granting him anticipatory bail and his father Ganeshi Lal offered to stand surety for him but Harpal told that the order was forged, and that he would not accept bail, and petitioner should accompany him to the Police Station where the Station House Officer would decide the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner was presented before the Station House Officer Harsahai to whom the anticipatory bail order was shown and his father again offered to stand as the surety but the Station House Officer showered bulger abuses and said tat the order was fake. The petitioner was ordered to be put behind the bar. He has further mentioned in his affidavit that Harsahai threatened him on 12.12-86 and 17-12-86 for which he has already filed separate affidavit in the court. 8. Harpal in his reply dated 23-1-1987 has submitted that he has not committed any contempt, whatsoever, and that he tenders his unconditional apology. While replying to the facts of the case, he has submitted that he was posted as A S.I. Police Station Rajgarh, under the direct control of S.I.0. Hari Sahai who was the Incharge of the Police Station and he was duty bound to obey the orders and directions of the Station House Officer. He was not guilty and therefore, he had kept the certified copy of the order in the case diary, and that the copy produced was a photostat copy of a certified copy and was not very clear but still the said orders of the High Court were shown to the Station House Officer who cast serious doubt about the genuineness of the copy, and directed him to keep the petitioner in custody. Therefore, he was not granted bail after his arrest. Therefore, he was not granted bail after his arrest. Moreover, he has stated that the order dated 8.1-1986 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner Mangilal was to the following effect:- "........and direct that in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 244/85, PS Rajgarh, the petitioner will be released on bail by the SHO, provided". These directions were given to the SHO P.S. Rajgarh and not to Harpal, ASI.He has further submitted that he did not make any interpolation in the Roznamcha entry No. 440 or 442, and that the report made against him by the SHO to the Assistant Supdt. of Police (document 5) is an after thought. He has further submitted that the remand application was signed by the Station House Officer, and therefore, he cannot shirk his responsibility and as per Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Police Rules. 1965, it is the duty of the Station House Officer to maintain the Roznamcha Aam and it is under the direct control of the SHO of a Police Station. 9. The petitioner filed another application by way of rejoinder on 9-2-198 7 stating that he was threatened by Har Sahai on 12.12-8o to with,draw the contempt petition and a complaint against him under section 111 Cr. PC has been submitted. He has further submitted copies of some complaints made against Harsahai, SHO. He has further stated that copy of the order dated 8-1.1986 was sent to the Station House Officer, Rajgarh by Registry of this court on 9-1-86 and as such, in all probability. it must have also reached Harpal before 13.1-86 and he must have come to know of the same before 13-1-86. He has further asserted that the certified copy of an order passed by the court does not bear the signature and seal of the Presiding Officer granting bail but only a certified copy is issued which presented before the lower court or before the police authorities. 10. Harsabai also filed a reply to the affidavit dated 19-1-1987. He has asserted that he was never shown any order of the High Court by the petitioner or his father or by the ASI Harpal Singh. He has also denied the allegations made in the affidavit dated 17-12-1986 and has stated that he never committed any contempt either on 12.12-86 or on 17-12-1986. 11. He has asserted that he was never shown any order of the High Court by the petitioner or his father or by the ASI Harpal Singh. He has also denied the allegations made in the affidavit dated 17-12-1986 and has stated that he never committed any contempt either on 12.12-86 or on 17-12-1986. 11. Some additional affidavits alongwith documents were also filed by Harpal Singh on 10.2-1987. He asserted that he has not made any interpolations in the Roznamcha dated 13-1-86 as the ultimate control of the Roznamcha is with the Station House Officer. He has further submitted that if he had been guilty of any misconduct regarding the bail order of this court, he would not have placed the copy of the order on the case diary when it was submitted before the magistrate on 14-1-1986. It has further been submitted that the remand application was signed by the SHO Har Sahai and he cannot be allowed to say that he is not responsible for the same. A copy of the remand application form has also been enclosed alongwith this additional affidavit. The certified copy of the order was shown to the SHO alongwith the application, who directed him to put the petitioner behind the bars and torn away the application for bail and he had to obey the orders of Harsahai as the SHO was his immediate boss. In this connection, he has filed affidavit of Ganeshilal, father of the petitioner Mangilal as also of a constable, Prabhu Dayal who was posted at the Police Station, Rajgarh on 13-t-1987. 12. Since a copy of the Roznamcha is also sent to the Circle Officer, we sent for a copy of the Roznamcha entry dated 13-1-86 from the office of the Circle Officer and thereafter, we requested the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory to examine the original Roznamcha entry as also copy received from the Circle Officer and to submit the report., as to whether there was any addition/alteration or interpolation in the entry No. 440 dated 13-1-1986. 13. The Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory Jaipur after examining the original entry in the Roznamcha and the copy received from the Circle Officer, and after taking photographs and enlarging them, has opined as under:- "1. The writings in the lower part have been crowded in the limited space and extended to the column entitled 'Khulasa Report. 2. 13. The Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory Jaipur after examining the original entry in the Roznamcha and the copy received from the Circle Officer, and after taking photographs and enlarging them, has opined as under:- "1. The writings in the lower part have been crowded in the limited space and extended to the column entitled 'Khulasa Report. 2. The writer tried to make initials and then over wrote in the 9th and 10th lines. 3. In 6th line, there is obliteration which is not consistent in the carbon copy. In view of the above, it is concluded that there are after additions in the last two lines after the words 'Report Darz Hai' as well as in 6th to 8th lines under the column 'Khulasa Report'. These additions have been made after the horizontal line is drawn to close the entry." 14. Having examined all these documents, replies, affidavits filed by the petitioner and the contemners, we have no doubt in our mind that I after obtaining the order for anticipatory bail on 8-1-1986, when Harpal I went to arrest the petitioner, he must have shown the certified copy of the I order to Harpal, and as has been alleged in the affidavit of petitioner as I also of his father, his father offered to give surety in terms of the order I of the High Court but inspite of this, he (petitioner) was brought to the I Police Station. This by itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that I contempt has been committed by Harpal. We are also of the opinion that Harpal must have brought to the notice of Harsahai that petitioner has been arrested. Petitioner and his father must have approached the SHO as well and also shown him the certified copy of the order of the High Court that he had been granted anticipatory bail, and that he should be released on bail Father of the petitioner must have offered to give surety in terms of the High Court older but Harsahai also did not ask to release the petitioner on bail and the petitioner was kept in custody on 13-1-86. Har Sahai signed the application for remand which was presented before the Magistrate on 14-1-1986, and therefore, Harsahai cannot shirk his responsibility and cannot be allowed to say that he was not aware that there was an order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, we hold that Harsahai, SHO has also committed contempt of court. Moreover, the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has opined that "there are after additions in the last two lines after the words 'Report Darz Hai' as well as in 6th to 8th lines under the column 'Khulasa Report'. These additions have been made after the horizontal line is drawn to close the entry." Entry No. 440 in the Roznamcha is in the handwriting of Harpal and therefore, Harpal is further liable for committing another offence of interpolating the Roznamcha entry with a view to save himself and throw the burden on Harsahai. The fact that certified copy of the bail order was shown to Har Sahai is corroborated by the affidavits of the petitioner, his father and Prabhu Dayal, Constable posted at Police Station Rajgarh. 15. Harpal cannot be allowed to say that it was the responsibility of the Station House Officer and that direction was given to the SHO and not to the Investigating Officer, in the order of the High Court granting bail to the petitioner. After all, the direction was to the S.H.U. P.S. Rajgarh and at the relevant time on 13.1-86 when Harpal arrested the petitioner Mangilal, Harsahai had already gone out for the purpose of investigation in some other case and at that time, Harpal was acting as the S.H.O also when he effected the arrest of the petitioner. Moreover, this cannot be taken as an excuse that the order was not addressed to him but only was a direction to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, and thus both the contemners are liable to be punished for committing contempt of this court. Moreover, this cannot be taken as an excuse that the order was not addressed to him but only was a direction to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, and thus both the contemners are liable to be punished for committing contempt of this court. When antic pat cry bail order was passed by the High Court, it was not open for either the S.H.O or the Investigating Officer of that case to keep in the custody the petitioner Investigating Officer or I the Station House Officer should ordinarily accept and respect the certified I copy of the order of the Court and should obey the directions given therein I unless there are very special and suspicious circumstances appearing on I the face of the document because the original orders an, not made available I to the parties and original orders are only kept on the file and record maintained in the court. The parties only obtain certified copy of the 1 orders and produce them before the concerned authorities, and therefore, I the contemners cannot be allowed to taken the plea that since it was not I the original order, they considered it to be fake or forged. 16. Thus, we are fully convinced and have no doubt whatsoever, in our mind, that both Har Sahai and Harpal are guilty of committing contempt of the order passed by this Court, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the terms that "in the event of arrest of accused petitioner Mangilal in FIR No 269/85, Police Station Rajgarh, (SH) shall release on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000J- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO undertaking to appear before him for investigation or interrogation as and when required to do so and further undertaking not to temper such of the persons who may be conversant to the facts of the case''. Looking to the seriousness of the case, the apology tendered by the contemners cannot be accepted. 17. In the result, this contempt petition is allowed, Harpal ASI PS Rajgarh is punished with simple imprisonment for a term of two months and a fine of Rs 1.000/-, and Harsahai, SHO PS Rajgarh is punished with simple imprisonment for a term of one month and a fine of Rs. 17. In the result, this contempt petition is allowed, Harpal ASI PS Rajgarh is punished with simple imprisonment for a term of two months and a fine of Rs 1.000/-, and Harsahai, SHO PS Rajgarh is punished with simple imprisonment for a term of one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, under the Contemplate of Court Act, 1971.A copy of this order should be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.Contempt Petition allowed. *******