Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1655 (PAT)

Yashwant Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar

2018-10-31

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2018
ORDER : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In terms of the earlier orders, the petitioner has been produced before the Court from Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna. 3. The reason why things have come to such a stage is well documented and recorded in the previous orders of the Court, especially 05.09.2018. 4. However, for the purposes of the present order, where the Court has to take a call with regard to the conduct of the petitioner and the action required to be taken against him, the Court would recapitulate the salient features in the case. The Court, thus, would reproduce paragraph no. 4 of the order dated 29.08.2018 which reads as under: "4. The matter, though being simple, had resulted in a situation where the petitioner had challenged the might of law and the State. In a criminal case where the Court had granted him extraordinary indulgence by releasing him on provisional bail by order dated 14.10.2014, he neither bothered to appear before this Court or even the Court below and further, even after cancellation of his bail on 10.02.2016, directing him surrender latest by 19.02.2016, he chose to blatantly defy the order and since then the Court had been pursuing the matter taking it up as a challenge to the system. Thus, right from 02.09.2016, i.e., seven months after the date fixed by the Court for the petitioner to surrender, the Court had been repeatedly fixing the matter while directing the Superintendent of Police, Patna to ensure the petitioner's arrest. Though, at a number of time it appeared that the Investigating Agencies were against a dead end and no further clue or whereabouts of the petitioner were being found and even the parents and close relatives of the petitioner had feigned total ignorance with regard to the whereabouts of the petitioner, but due to persistent pressure and earnest steps taken by the team, the petitioner was finally arrested." 5. Further, the Court had recorded the following in its order dated 05.09.2018: "3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner has obviously taken the system for a ride and has tried his best to evade the due process of law and even the indulgence given by the Court has been thoroughly abused and misused. Further, the Court had recorded the following in its order dated 05.09.2018: "3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner has obviously taken the system for a ride and has tried his best to evade the due process of law and even the indulgence given by the Court has been thoroughly abused and misused. He submitted that the Court should take serious note of the same and holding the petitioner accountable, pass appropriate orders. 4. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, inasmuch as, he left his home in Bihar and even the family members and close relatives, including the sister feigned ignorance and took the stand before the police that the petitioner had gone away and was not in touch with them, clearly indicates that the conduct of the petitioner was not bona fide and he had deliberately and willfully, with full knowledge tried to hoodwink the system and become traceless with the objective that the law would not catch up with him and, thus, clearly he has forfeited his right for being shown any indulgence by the Court. 5. In view thereof, prima facie, the petitioner has committed gross contempt." 6. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner, who is present has also filed his show cause today, though affirmed by his sister-in-law (wife of his elder brother) at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana dated 27.10.2018 (though wrongly signed by her showing the date 27.05.2018). 7. The Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the averments made in the show cause which reads as under: "1. That this show cause application is being filed in compliance of the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court, passed in Cri. Misc No. 32161/2014 for initiation of contempt proceeding against the petitioner. 2. That the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has got the highest regard for the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. That the petitioner cannot even imagine to disobey/flout the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. That the petitioner tenders unconditional and unqualified apology for his action and conduct. 5. That it is relevant to mention here that after the release from custody on provisional bail the petitioner approached the opp. party no. 2 for conciliation where he was mentally tortured and seriously threatened by the informant (op. 4. That the petitioner tenders unconditional and unqualified apology for his action and conduct. 5. That it is relevant to mention here that after the release from custody on provisional bail the petitioner approached the opp. party no. 2 for conciliation where he was mentally tortured and seriously threatened by the informant (op. No.2) to be implicated in new false and fabricated case like the present case and put him behind the bar for endless period. 6. That out of fear, frustration and mentally disturbed due to the threat to be implicated in the false and fabricated case by the informant (opp. No.- 2) the petitioner left the town without any information to anyone. 7. That it is humbly submitted and prayed that the petitioner undertakes to abide by the direction and condition which may be given or imposed while dropping the present proceeding initiated against petitioner by this Hon'ble Court. 8. That it is most humble submitted that the petitioner once again tenders unconditional and unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court and he has no intention to violate the order of this Hon'ble Court at any point of time. 9. That the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court is deeply regretted." 8. From the above, the Court is constrained to observe that there is a huge gap between what has been done by the petitioner and what he has pleaded on record. On the one hand, he has stated that he is a law abiding citizen and he has got the highest regard for the order passed by the Court and cannot even imagine to disobey/flout the orders, whereas, on the other hand, he tried his level best to defy, disobey and hoodwink the law and law enforcing agencies, taking a direct confrontation with the Court. The main thrust of the show cause, on merits, is that after provisional bail, he had approached the opposite party no. 2 for conciliation where he was mentally tortured and seriously threatened by her of being implicated in new false and fabricated cases so that he may be behind the bar for endless period and due to this threat, he had left the town without any information to anyone. 9. First and foremost, the Court would record that the petitioner being a fully literate person cannot be allowed to take such plea which is absolutely unbelievable and palpably false. 9. First and foremost, the Court would record that the petitioner being a fully literate person cannot be allowed to take such plea which is absolutely unbelievable and palpably false. If he is a law abiding citizen and as he has written that he cannot even imagine to disobey the orders passed, he should have brought all this fact before the Court in the present proceeding or even before the Court below seeking protection and furthermore, he was required in law to ensure that his presence, either physically or through a counsel was ensured before the Court below as well as this Court. 10. At this stage, the Court would only indicate that the petitioner having being arrested from Gurgaon and the elder brother of the petitioner staying there, it is clear that the petitioner was never completely cut off from his family members. Thus, the Court finds that the act of the petitioner is both deliberate and willful and a serious challenge before the system and, thus, has to be dealt with in the strictest manner. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself was given one further opportunity to address the Court. The only plea which came forward was that the Court may forgive the petitioner as he was sorry for his act. 12. The Court finds that had there been any mitigating circumstances, the plea of apology could have been considered but in the present case, it took persistent follow up by the Court and an entire team had to be set up by the District Police to finally locate and bring him before law, which took more than two years, because of which he has forfeited the right of his apology being favourably considered. Moreover, the law on accepting apology by a contemnor is well settled, inasmuch as, if such apology is only for the purposes of getting over any adverse order by the Court, the apology being sham should be outrightly rejected. In the present case, the Court has no hesitation to record the finding that the apology, in the background of the conduct of the petitioner is absolutely an eye wash and sham and, thus, is hereby rejected. 13. The Court once again called upon learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself to address with regard to the quantum of punishment. 14. Both have pleaded for leniency. 13. The Court once again called upon learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself to address with regard to the quantum of punishment. 14. Both have pleaded for leniency. 15. For the purposes of considering the quantum, the Court would adopt the standard approach, which is, of considering the conduct of the petitioner which may be relevant to the issue before the Court. For such purpose, the Court would record that as per the information available with the learned APP from the police, the petitioner has performed second marriage at Gurgaon. When the Court sought a clarification, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions taken from the petitioner, submitted that though he has not married, but he was going to marry at Gurgaon. 16. This admission clearly indicates that the stand of the petitioner before the Court is totally without bona fide. If a person who has been threatened by his wife and is in fear of his future implication in any false case, cannot be expected to so soon embark on a fresh matrimonial journey by even thinking of second marriage. In the present case, though as per the Police, he has married but as per the petitioner, he is going to marry for a second time, may not be very relevant, as the fact remains that at least, he has accepted that he is going to marry again and, thus, his entire basis of being shown leniency of being under the threat of his wife, is washed away as, at the cost of repetition, the Court would record that a man who has gone through such harrowing experience, as has been stated by him before the Court, would not immediately embark upon the same journey in life. Further, second marriage during the lifetime of a living spouse is totally impermissible and also illegal. 17. Having regard to the totality of the situation, the Court finds that no leniency is required to be shown to the petitioner for such conduct. Accordingly, the Court holds him guilty of contempt of Court and proceeds to punish him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 18. The petitioner is sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be deposited within three months and further imprisonment of six months. Failure to pay the amount within three months shall entail further imprisonment of six months. Accordingly, the Court holds him guilty of contempt of Court and proceeds to punish him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 18. The petitioner is sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be deposited within three months and further imprisonment of six months. Failure to pay the amount within three months shall entail further imprisonment of six months. It is clarified that such sentence shall remain suspended during the period the petitioner is in custody, either as an interim or final measure, under any order of any Court and upon such sentence being fully undergone, the present sentence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall run. 19. The petitioner be taken back to Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna by the team which has produced him before the Court today. 20. The matter shall now be listed under the heading 'For Admission' for considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014. 21. As per the order of the Court, the Superintendent, Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna was to produce the petitioner. The Court had consciously passed the order in the background that he was under judicial custody and should have been produced by the Prison authorities and not by the District Police. In the present case upon a query to learned APP, the Court has been informed that the petitioner was handed over to the District Police at the Prison where he was stationed from where he has been produced before the Court without there being any official of the Prison. Thus, technically the petitioner being in judicial custody could not have been handed over to Police custody without due permission of the Court. 22. In the aforesaid background, let the Superintendent, Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna file a personal affidavit as to under what circumstances, when the Court had specifically directed him to produce the petitioner before the Court, he had handed him over to the Police, when the matter be listed on 28th November, 2018, under the heading 'For Orders'. The officer shall also be present.