Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2811 (PNJ)

Roshni Devi v. Jagjiwan Singh Makha

2006-07-17

SURYA KANT

body2006
Judgment 1. The petitioner, a 70 years old widow, is second time at the doors of this Court. She had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No.30605-M of 2005 to grant her pre-arrest bail in F. I. R. No.38 dated 4.5.2005, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 474 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha against her and her two sons. 2. The above-stated Crl. Misc. Petition came up for hearing on 30.5.2005 when the following ad-interim order was passed:- "meanwhile, petitioner is directed to appear before investigation officer on 10.06.2005 at 10.00 a. m. and also on any other date (s), as directed by the investigating officer and she shall fully cooperate in the investigation. However, in case she is required to be arrested, she shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of arresting officer. Further she shall not leave India without the prior permission of the trial court and shall surrender her passport, if any, before the investigating officer. Sd/-Kiran Anand Lall, 30.05.2005 Judge. " 3. Her counsel issued a certificate on 30/5/2005 itself (Annexure p-1) giving detailed particulars of the above-mentioned order including that the certified copy had been applied which was likely to be received in a short time. The certificate was issued so that in the event of her arrest, it could be shown to the police authorities. A certified copy of the abovestated order was issued by the copying agency of this Court on 31.5.2005 as has been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is averred that though the certified copy of the order dated 30.5.2005 was very much available and shown by the petitioner at about 4.00 p. m. , the respondents on 31.5.2005 at about 4.00 p. m. swooped-down forcibly upon the house of the petitioner in a Government Gypsy and took her to the police station where she was shown to have been arrested. The petitioner was produced before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha on the next day i. e.1.6.2005 when she was released on bail by passing the following order:- "accused Roshni Devi has been produced by a. S. I. Sham Lal with request of police remand. The petitioner was produced before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha on the next day i. e.1.6.2005 when she was released on bail by passing the following order:- "accused Roshni Devi has been produced by a. S. I. Sham Lal with request of police remand. At this stage, photostat copy of the order dated 30.5.2005 passed by the HON BLE High Court has been produced by ravinder Kumar, who also filed an affidavit that said copy was obtained on 31.5.2005 which is true and correct copy. An application for bail has also been moved by ld. Defence Counsel. In view of the orders of HON BLE high Court, accused is ordered to be released forthwith on interim bail till 8.9.05 or till awaiting further orders, on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The requisite bonds furnished, which have been accepted and attested. " 4. Alleging that despite the grant of interim bail to petitioner, the respondents knowingly and deliberately violated the said order and refused to release her on bail and are, thus, guilty of committing the contempt of Court, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. In response to the show cause notice, the respondents have put in appearance and have filed their respective affidavits taking a bald and vague plea that they had no knowledge of the interim order passed by this court as the petitioner did not show its copy. 6. On a specific query by the Court, the respondents who are present in person have gone to the extent of saying that the petitioner did not even disclose to them that about passing of the ad-interim order by this Court when they went to arrest her on 31.5.2005. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I am satisfied that, prima facie, both the respondents are guilty of violating the order dated 30.5.2005 passed by this Court. It is unbelievable that the petitioner despite having been granted ad -interim pre-arrest bail by this court would not disclose that fact to the respondents when they came at her residence to arrest her. It is unbelievable that the petitioner despite having been granted ad -interim pre-arrest bail by this court would not disclose that fact to the respondents when they came at her residence to arrest her. No explanation is coming forth as to what was the extreme urgency to arrest the petitioner when her counsel had issued a certificate (Annexure P1) on 30.5.2005 itself wherein all the details pertaining to the case filed by the petitioner were mentioned and it was also stated that certified copy had been applied and will be made available in a short time. Importantly, the averment made by the petitioner that the respondents reached about 4.00 p. m. on 31.5.2005 to arrest her, has also not been controverted. Since the certified copy had been issued by the Copy branch of this Court on 31.5.2005, I am inclined to believe that by the time the respondents came to arrest her, the petitioner had also received the certified copy of the order dated 30.5.2005. 7. In this view of the matter, there can be no other conclusion but to hold that the respondents are prima facie guilty of committing the contempt of this court. Faced with the situation, Mr. Cheema, learned Sr. DAG prays mercy for the respondents and submits that the respondents, who are present in Court, are ready and willing to compensate the petitioner in order to purge the contempt. Mr. Cheema further submits that the respondents are repentant of their conduct and have tendered unconditional and unqualified apology. He wants this Court to show magnanimity and assures that in future the respondents shall not repeat this kind of incident. 8. Having considered the above submissions made by learned state counsel and keeping in view all the attended circumstances, it is directed that both the respondents shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000.00 each (total rs.20,000.00) to the petitioner, which shall be paid by them by way of bank draft (s) within one week from today. If the respondents, however, fail to pay the aforementioned costs, the petitioner shall be entitled to get these proceedings revived. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged.