Judgment :- K.A. Thanikkachalam, ACJ. 1. C.M.P. No. 1307 of 1997 in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 1997 is filed by one Jai Sudharasanan, for enlarging him on bail, on his own band, pending disposal of the above Contempt appeal. .2. C.M.P. No. 1499 of 1997 in W.A. No. 102 of 1997 is filed by Jai Sudharasanan and Vasanthi, for enlarging them on bail, on their own bonds, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. 3. Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 1997 is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in suo motu Contempt Application No. 182 of 1996, dated 112. 1996. Writ Appeal No. 102 of 1997 is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4538 to 4542 of 1996, dated 112. 1996. 4. W.A. No. 102 of 1997 was filed after obtaining leave from this Court since the appellants in the writ appeal are not parties to the proceedings in W.P.Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996. 5. In the common order dated 112. 1996 in W.P.Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996, the learned single Judge found that Jai Sudharasanan and Vasanthi are guilty of the of fence of forgery, punishable under Section 193 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also punished them for criminal contempt of curt and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for six months. The sentence imposed for the of fence under Section 193 IPC and for criminal contempt were to run concurrently. Apart from that, the learned single Judge has also initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Jai Sudharasanan in C.A. No. 182 of 1996 and proceedings against Jai Sudharasanan in C.A. No. 182 of 1996 and against Vasanthi in C.A. No. 500 of 1996. By order dated 112. 1996 in C.A. No. 182 of 1996, the learned single Judge found Jai Sudharasanan guilty under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, punished him to undergo imprisonment for period of six months and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000. In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000 the learned single Judge directed the contemnor to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month. In L.P.A. No. 38 of 1997 filed by Vasanthi against the order dated 2. 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in Sub Appln. In default of payment of fine of Rs.2,000 the learned single Judge directed the contemnor to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month. In L.P.A. No. 38 of 1997 filed by Vasanthi against the order dated 2. 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in Sub Appln. No. 30 of 1997 in C.A. No. 500 of 1996, this Court, by order dated 22. 1997, stayed all further proceedings in suo motu C.A. No. 500 of 1996 before the learned single Judge in so far as they relate to the appellant viz, Vasanthi. .6. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996, Jai Sudharasanan and Vasanthi, who are now serving the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Single Judge, preferred W.A. No102 of 1997. Jai Sudharasanan filed Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 1997 against the order passed by the learned single Judge in suo motu contempt Application No. 182 of 1996. They also filed C.M.P.Nos.1307 and 1499 of 1997 to enlarge them on bail, on their own bonds, pending disposal of the proceedings in the writ appeal and in the contempt appeal. According to them, the common order dated 112. 1996, passed by the learned single Judge is affecting their interest and therefore they filed the aforesaid C.M.Ps. to enlarge them on bail. 7. When the aforesaid C.M.Ps. Came-up for hearing before us, the petitioners, who appeared as parties-in-person, submitted that on an earlier occasion this Court directed them to produce the medical certificates showing their illness and health condition. Accordingly, Jai Sudharsanan produced some papers before us, saying that they are medical certificates. We have perused those papers. The paper produced by Jai Sudharsanan are not medical certificates. One piece of paper in an O.P. Chit and other two pieces of paper are not worth mentioning as nothing is stated therein regarding the illness and health condition of the petitioners. According to Jai Sudharsanan he is a heart-patient, requiring by-pass surgery. But in support of this version he has not produced any acceptable medical certificate before us. If he is really sick, though now lodged in the Central Prison, he could have consulted the Doctors through Jail authorities and produced before us the necessary medical certificates to substantiate his version. According to Jai Sudharsanan he is a heart-patient, requiring by-pass surgery. But in support of this version he has not produced any acceptable medical certificate before us. If he is really sick, though now lodged in the Central Prison, he could have consulted the Doctors through Jail authorities and produced before us the necessary medical certificates to substantiate his version. Even in the affidavit filed by him in support of the petition to enlarge him on bail no reason relating to his illness is stated. So far as Vasanthi is concerned, she also submitted that she is suffering from some ailment connected with gynecological problem. But she has also not produced any acceptable medical certificate to enlarge her on bail. Petitioners also submitted that they are entitled to bail as soon as an appeal is preferred against the order passed in the contempt applications under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Enlargement on bail under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not an automatic one and the petitioners herein cannot claim it is a matter of right unless they satisfy the Court with valid and acceptable grounds that they can be enlarged on bail. .8. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent -Bar council of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, who opposed the bail petitions by filing counters. According to the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, the petitioners herein have committed various of fence, for which they were punished and now serving the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned single Judge. According to the learned counsel the petitioners are also guilty of impersonation. 9. On hearing the petitioners, who appeared as parties-in-person, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and on perusing the records placed before us, it prima facie appears to us that the petitioners herein were convicted by this Court for various of fences committed by them. The learned single Judge who dealt with the writ petitions and suo motu contempt applications mentioned about the commission and ommission of the petitioners herein, culminating to the fraud played on this Court and wilful disobeying of the orders of this Court. The medical ground on which the petitioners are seeking for bail is not supported by any authentic and acceptable medical evidence. Even the affidavits filed by the petitioners in support of the aforesaid C.M.Ps. The medical ground on which the petitioners are seeking for bail is not supported by any authentic and acceptable medical evidence. Even the affidavits filed by the petitioners in support of the aforesaid C.M.Ps. are bereft of particulars. Nothing is stated there in to support their plea that they are ill and require medical treatment. The learned single Judge has justified in his order in imposing the sentence of imprisonment on these petitioners. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any valid and sufficient reason shown by the petitioners for enlarging them on bail, it is not possible for this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail, on their own bonds, pending disposal of C.A. No. 1 of 1997 and W.A. No. 102 of 1997. 10. In that view of the matter, C.M.P.Nos.1307 and 1499 of 1997 are dismissed. Post C.A. No. 1 of 1997 and W.A. No. 102 of 1997 for hearing immediately after re-opening after summer vacation.