Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. By an order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 21.12.1999, appellants, namely, S.Saideeshwara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Medchal Police Station, and P.Seshagiri Rao, Circle Inspector of Police, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh, were found guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, for having disobeyed the order of this High Court, dated 25.09.1998, granting anticipatory bail to the respondents, by arresting and causing them for remand. This is challenged in the present two different appeals, namely, Contempt Appeal Nos.24 of 2000 and 25 of 2000, by the respective appellants. 2. The brief facts are as follows: A case was registered in Crime No.140 of 1998 on the file of Medchal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh, against the respondents for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The respondents filed an application for bail before the Madras High Court in Criminal O.P.No.16455 of 1998 and obtained the same on 25.09.1998, on condition that anticipatory bail would be in force for a period of eight weeks from that day and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.3,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and on further condition that the accused persons should appear before the said Court and furnish sureties within 10 days from the date of that order and, thereafter, they shall move the appropriate Court in Andhra Pradesh and seek further orders, regarding their release on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, they furnished the sureties before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, and got intimation from the Magistrate for acceptance of the sureties. The same was intimated to the police officials of Medchal Police Station in Andhra Pradesh, who are the appellants herein. Despite that, the respondents were arrested by the first appellant, on the instructions given by the second appellant, on 02.11.1998 and they were produced before the local Judicial Magistrate, who, in turn, released them on bail, on obtaining sureties, and accordingly, they were released on the same day i.e., on 02.11.1998. 3. Aggrieved over the arrest by police, namely, the appellants, the respondents herein filed Contempt Application No.723 of 1998 before the learned single Judge of this Court, who had granted interim anticipatory bail to the respondents. 4. 3. Aggrieved over the arrest by police, namely, the appellants, the respondents herein filed Contempt Application No.723 of 1998 before the learned single Judge of this Court, who had granted interim anticipatory bail to the respondents. 4. The matter was hotly contested by the respective parties. Notice was issued to the contemners, who appeared and made representation through their counsel. Ultimately, the learned single Judge, on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties and also on the basis of the records summoned from the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, found the contemners guilty of civil contempt and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of them, since they arrested the respondents herein, despite the knowledge about the anticipatory bail granted by this Court and the order of the Magistrate accepting the sureties, furnished by the respondents. This is under challenge in these two appeals. 5. Mr.S.Hameed Mohideen, learned counsel for the appellants, would strenuously contend that the learned single Judge, on the basis of presumptions and surmises, concluded that the appellants have committed contempt, without considering the vital documents available on record and, as such, there is no material to show that the arrest of the accused by the appellants in a case registered on the file of their Police Station could be said to be a wanton violation of the anticipatory bail order, passed by the Madras High Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in justification of the order passed by the learned single Judge, would submit that the respondents, in the Contempt Application, had established that the defence projected by the contemners was false and, as such, there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, carefully considered their submissions and also gone through the records. 8. The learned single Judge took pains and perused not only the records available in the High Court, but also summoned the records from the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal; meticulously considered each and every aspect of the matter and found that the defence projected by the contemners was not true. 9. But, in our view, the learned single Judge had omitted to consider two important documents, namely, Remand Order and the Bail Application, filed by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal. 9. But, in our view, the learned single Judge had omitted to consider two important documents, namely, Remand Order and the Bail Application, filed by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal. 10. According to the Respondents/accused, they obtained anticipatory bail from Madras High Court on 25.09.1998 and furnished sureties to the satisfaction of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, within 10 days; the same was intimated to Medchal Police Station and despite that, they were arrested on 02.11.1998. 11. The appellants/contemners did not dispute the fact of the respondents/accused having obtained interim anticipatory bail order from Madras High Court on 25.09.1998. However, the statement made by the respondents/applicants in the Contempt Application that they furnished sureties before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai; obtained intimation on 25.09.1998 and the same was handed over to Medchal Police Station is disputed. 12. According to the contemners, the accused were arrested on 02.11.1998 and when they were informed about the anticipatory bail granted to the accused by Madras High Court, they asked for the proof to show that sureties had been furnished and since the accused did not produce such a proof, the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, on the same day i.e., on 02.11.1998 and requested for remand, intimating the said Court about the anticipatory bail granted by Madras High Court. When the accused were questioned by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, to produce the proof that already they executed bonds before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, as per the High Court's order, they did not produce the same. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, by the order dated 02.11.1998, remanded the accused to judicial custody up to 16.11.1998. However, the Magistrate entertained the bail application filed by the respondents herein on the same day and granted bail, taking into consideration of the fact that already they obtained anticipatory bail in respect of the same case by Madras High Court. 13. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, dated 02.11.1998, by which the accused were remanded, which reads as follows : "DOCKET ORDER Heard. The above noted escort produced A2, A3 and A4 at 4.00 P.M. on 2.11.98. None of the accused complained ill-treatment by police. 13. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, dated 02.11.1998, by which the accused were remanded, which reads as follows : "DOCKET ORDER Heard. The above noted escort produced A2, A3 and A4 at 4.00 P.M. on 2.11.98. None of the accused complained ill-treatment by police. The allegation is that A2 and A-3 obtained anticipatory bail from High Court of Tamil Nadu but they did not execute the bond as per such orders. Whereas the accused stated that they executed the bond before the concerned Magistrate. A2 and A3 did not produce any certified copy of order of High Court of Tamil Nadu or the concerned Magistrate to the effect that the accused executed bonds. Hence, basing on the allegation in the report, A2 to A4 remanded to Judicial Custody u/s 167 Cr.P.C. up to 16.11.98." 14. The above observation, in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, would indicate that the police themselves informed the Magistrate about the anticipatory bail granted to the accused by Madras High Court, but the accused were not able to produce any orders, regarding the intimation of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, having accepted the sureties. This would show, even though the accused stated that they had executed bonds before the Magistrate concerned, they were not able to produce any certified copy thereof. 15. Similarly, one of the vital documents is, Bail Application, filed by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, on the same day of arrest. In the said bail application, the accused never stated that they furnished sureties as per the High Court's order to the Magistrate concerned and obtained intimation to that effect. On the other hand, they stated that they were ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court at Medchal, for bail. In the said bail application, the accused never stated that they furnished sureties as per the High Court's order to the Magistrate concerned and obtained intimation to that effect. On the other hand, they stated that they were ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court at Medchal, for bail. The relevant portions of the petition are as follows: "PETITION FILED U/S 437 OF Cr.P.C. OFFENCE U/S 406 & 420 I.P.C. 1.The petitioners herein humbly submit that in the above said case the police personnel of Medchal have falsely implicated the petitioners and alleged that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 of I.P.C. 2.The petitioners herein humbly submit that after registering this crime, the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, they have obtained an anticipatory bail before Chennai Court. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to order the bail and release the petitioners, information was given to concerned Medchal Police Station. 3.The petitioners herein humbly submit that they are innocent without any questionable antecedents. 4.The petitioners are ready to furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court and obey the process." 16. These things would definitely show, that even though the police as well as the Court at Medchal were informed about the anticipatory bail, the accused did not produce the copy of intimation, obtained from VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, regarding acceptance of sureties, either to the police at the time of arrest or to the Magistrate at the time of remand on 02.11.1998. As stated above, the accused did not even mention in the bail application that they had already furnished sureties to the Magistrate concerned. 17. In this regard, we have to view the act of the appellants/contemners, in arresting the respondents/accused and producing them before the Magistrate concerned at Medchal, Andhra Pradesh. 18. It is seen from the affidavits filed by the appellants before the learned single Judge that they had tendered unconditional apology, for the mistake committed by them. Even then, the learned single Judge, on the basis of the records summoned from the Court at Medchal, found them guilty and did not accept apology. 19. As we already pointed out, the learned single Judge had omitted to consider the documents, namely, Magistrate's Remand Order and the Application for Bail, filed by the accused. 20. Even then, the learned single Judge, on the basis of the records summoned from the Court at Medchal, found them guilty and did not accept apology. 19. As we already pointed out, the learned single Judge had omitted to consider the documents, namely, Magistrate's Remand Order and the Application for Bail, filed by the accused. 20. In the light of those documents, it cannot be conclusively established that the appellants/contemners had personal knowledge about the acceptance of sureties by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 21. What may, there is no dispute in the fact that the appellants were aware of the interim anticipatory bail order, passed by Madras High Court. According to the respondents, already, anticipatory bail order copy was served on the appellants, but, according to the police officials/appellants, only at the time of arrest, they were shown a xerox copy of anticipatory bail order. Even assuming that the anticipatory bail order copy was shown to the police officials by the accused only at the time of arrest, the police officials should have immediately verified from the Court concerned, as to whether sureties had been furnished by the accused within 10 days from the date of the order passed by High Court of Madras. Admittedly, this was not done. But, it is to be noted, even when the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, the police officials intimated to the Magistrate, through the remand requisition, that the accused obtained interim anticipatory bail order from Madras High Court, enclosing the xerox copy of the said order, produced by the accused, along with the remand requisition. Therefore, the bona fides of the police officials cannot be doubted. 22. In the light of the said factual situation, the apology tendered by the appellants/contemners can be accepted, in view of the fact that the accused persons were released on bail by the Magistrate concerned on the very same day of arrest, as the police officials did not raise any objection. 23. Therefore, the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants is accepted and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. 24. Appeals are allowed and the appellants are discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. No costs.