1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed for initiating contempt procedure against opposite party no.2 who is the Officer-in-charge of Civil Line Police Station, Gaya, for wilful disobedience of the order dated 4.8.2005, passed by this Court in Cr.Misc.No.21844 of 2005, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1034(C) of 2004.

3. Petitioner filed anticipatory ball application vide Cr.Misc.No.21844 of 2004 and interim order was passed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner Subsequently by order dated 4.8.2005 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with the condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs. four lakh in the court below within six weeks from the date of the order and then the court below will allow him anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.1034(C)of2004.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he applied for certified copy of the order on 12.8.2005 which was supplied to him on 16.8.2005. The period of six weeks was going to expire on 19.9.2005. In the meantime on 22.8.2005 opposite party no.2 came to arrest him. He produced the certified copy of the order granting anticipatory bail before him, but instead of taking cognizance of the order the petitioner was arrested and on the same day he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. The petitioner was taken into custody and on 26.8.2005 after he deposited Rs. four lakh he was released on bail. It has been submitted that this is a clear case of contempt of this courts order and stern action should be taken against opposite party who has willfully shown disrespect to the direction and order of this Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision in the case of Btjay Kumar Mahanty vs. Jadu @ Ram Chandra Sahoo [2003(1) P.LJ.R. 182]. In this matter the contemnor was also a police officer and Apex Court has held that "Police officers are supposed to be the members of disciplined force. It is of utmost importance to curb any tendency in them to flout orders of the Couit. It is more so when flouting of order results in deprivation of personal liberty of an individual. If protectors of law, to take revenge, defy court orders they will have to be sternly dealt with and appropriate punishment inflicted also with a view to send a message across the board that such an act cannot be countenanced." In this case contemnor was confined to civil prison for seven days as well as fine was imposed.

6. The Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that it goes without saying that we all have to show respect to the orders of this Court. Our existence is dependent on the existence of this institution and no one can say that any one who has wilfully flouted orders of this court or disobeyed any order of this Court, he should be given any protection.

7. It has been submitted by the Additional Advocate General that on consideration of the entire material it is apparent that the opposite party no.2 who is Sub-Inspector of Police has not intentionally and willfully shown any disrespect to the orders passed by this Court. The direction of this Court as well as tenor of the order of this Court dated 4.8.2005 was not properly understood by him. The action to arrest petitioner was taken in the background of the order of attachment passed by the Judicial Magistrate before passing of the order dated 4.8.2005 by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the month of June, 2005 itself the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 for implementation/execution of that order, arrested the petitioner under the impression that unless the petitioner will deposit Rs. four lakhs as per the direction of this Court he is not entitled for benefits of anticipatory bail. In sum and substance, the submission