The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appeal challenging non-grant of bail under sec. 14(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would not be maintainable under sec. 19(1) of the Act.

R.S.Garg, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. During the course of hearing of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 285 of 2003 (Haridwar Pandey V/s. The State of Bihar) by a Division Bench there arose dispute relating to maintainability of present appeal u/s. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both the Hon ble judges recorded different findings and differed in their conclusion. Hon ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha after recording the detailed order observed that the appeal against the order refusing bail u/s. 14(4) of the Act would be maintainable u/s. 19 of the Act. While Hon ble Mr. Justice B.N.P. Singh by his detailed order observed that the appeal would not be maintainable. In view of the difference in opinion, the matter has came up before me.

3. Before dwelling upon the issue of maintainability it is necessary to record certain facts. One Haridwar Pandey S/0 Late Ramdutt Pandey had filed Gr. Misc. No. 21709 of 2003. In the said matter, the appellant/applicant sought modification of the earlier order, passed by Hon ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad.

4. The said Cr. Misc. No. 21709 of 2003 came up for hearing before the Hon ble judge on 11-8-2003. The petitioner appeared in person. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the applicant before the Court asked for transfer of the case and referred to the prayer made in that application for hearing of the matter before a Full Bench of at least three judges. In the application, it was said by him that he had already written registered letter dated 11-3-2003 to the Hon ble Chief Justice for the said purpose. The Hon ble Single Judge after going through the complete application found that there were serious scandalous and irresponsible allegations against some of the judges of the subordinate judiciary and even the petitioner did not leave the High Court in spitting the venom. The petitioner went on to observe that the Hon ble Court (High Court) while passing the order dated 21-2-2003 has suppressed this fact that the trial Court of Sri Madhusudan Singh had a plan to get the petitioner killed any how number of other irresponsible allegations were also made.

5. The Hon ble judge before proceeding further in the matter asked the petitioner about all those statements made in the application and the stand taken by him. The learned Judge in his order dated 11-8-2003 after recording certain portions from the application recorded his findings that the acts of the petitioner clearly constitute contempt committed in the face of the Court. After recording such a finding, the Hon ble Judge proceeded further in the matter under sec. 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act and directed that the petitioner be detained in Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna, and a copy of the order was asked to be served upon the petitioner on that date itself. On petitioners request, time was granted to him till 21-8-2003 to file his defence. After the said order was passed, the petitioner made a prayer for bail. The learned Judge refused to accede to the prayer of the petitioner because he found him prima facie guilty of contempt in face of the Court. The matter was adjourned to 25-8-2003. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2003 refusing bail the petitioner chose to file the present Miscellaneous Appeal No. 285 of 2003.

6. It appears that the Stamp Reporter raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. Thereafter, the division bench heard the parties. On 3-9-2003, oral order was passed by Hon ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha dictating in the Court while the order of disagreement or differences was recorded by Hon ble Mr. Justice B.N.P. Singh in Chambers on 3-9-2003.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended before me that a fair understanding of sec. 19(1) and sec. 19(2) read in juxtaposition with Sec. 14(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it would clearly appear that an appeal against the order rejecting prayer for bail would be maintainable. He has plac