Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Sajeev S. Superintendent - Appellant
Versus
Dileep Sathyan S - Respondents
Con.APP(C) No. 20 of 2024
Decided on : 18-03-2025
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19(1) - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Contempt appeal against interim order - Appellants found prima facie in contempt for not releasing a prisoner granted interim bail - Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act not maintainable as it is an interlocutory order - Intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act is maintainable if the order is on merits. (Paras 1 , 9 , 20 )
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a life convict, was granted interim bail for a week to attend his daughter's marriage but was not released by the appellants citing his ongoing sentence in another case. The learned Single Judge found prima facie contempt for not complying with the bail order.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the possibility of an intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act was acknowledged.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the contempt appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and whether the learned Single Judge's finding constituted civil contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an appeal under Section 19(1) is not maintainable for interlocutory orders and that an intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) is applicable if the order addresses merits independent of contempt proceedings.
Result: Contempt appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
(Muralee Krishna, J.)
This contempt appeal is filed by the respondents in Contempt Case (C) No.2380 of 2024 against the interim order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby it was found that prima facie the appellants committed contempt of Court by not releasing the respondent herein, a prisoner in custody who was granted interim bail as per the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.08.2024 in B.A. No.6752 of 2024 and therefore directed to frame charge against the appellants.
2. This contempt appeal was originally filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On 26.11.2024, when this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (‘ADGP’ for short) and also the learned counsel for the respondent sought time to address arguments on the maintainability of the contempt appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. On 06.12.2024, the learned ADGP filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking an order to treat the appeal as one filed under Sec.5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 instead of Sec.19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. After hearing the preliminary submissions made by both sides, we appointed Advocate K.Rajeev as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Advocate C.K Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to hand over a complete set of appeal memorandum to the learned Amicus Curiae.
3. The facts which lead to the filing of the above contempt appeal can be summarised as follows:
3.1. The respondent is the 3rd accused in Crime No.2414 of 2020 of Venjarammoodu Police Station charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b),323, 324, 302, 120B, 201, 102 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 27 of Arms Act, which is pending trial as S.C.No.260 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent is also a life convict and has been undergoing sentence as per the judgment dated 26.03.2021 of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C. No.103 of 2010, for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with 34 of IPC. His sentence was not suspended in the convicted case. Meanwhile, he filed B.A. No.6752 of 2024 before this Court seeking interim bail for one week in S.C. No.260 of 2021 to attend the marriage of his daughter, fixed to be held on 18.08.2024. As per the order dated 14.08.2024, the learned Single Judge granted interim bail to the respondent till 21.08.2024 by imposing various conditions and posted the bail application for further consideration to 22.08.2024. As directed in the bail order, on 14.08.2024 the bail bond was executed by the sureties before the Trial Court in S.C. No.260 of 2021. As per Annexure R1(e) official communication dated 14.08.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram directed the 1st appellant to release the respondent, if he is not required in any other case. By Annexure R1(f) official communication dated 15.08.2024, the 1st appellant informed the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram that since the respondent is undergoing the sentence in S.C. No. 103 of 2010 and he was not granted bail or interim bail in that case, he could not be released on bail as directed in S.C No.260 of 2021. The learned counsel who filed the bail application on behalf of the respondent thereafter filed Contempt Case (C) No. 238 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge stating that despite the bail order passed by the learned Single Judge, the request of the respondent for emergency leave in S.C No.103 of 2010 was rejected by the 1st appellant based on a report given by the 2nd appellant Station House Officer, Venjaramoodu, which in turn was based on alleged intelligence report and the act of the appellants is a civil contempt.
3.2. As per the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, the learned Single Judge found the non-releasing of respondent by the 1st appellant based on a report filed by the
An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable for interlocutory orders, but an intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act may be allowed if a....
The appeal process under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act requires a connection with an order punishing for contempt; proceedings not fulfilling this criterion are non-appealable.
An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt, not against orders related to the merits of the dispute.
An intra-court appeal against an order dismissing contempt proceedings is not maintainable as per Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which allows appeals only against orders imposing ....
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable when the court has formed a prima facie opinion and proceeds to frame charges.
The Regulation-making power cannot be exercised so as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities which are not contemplated in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
