THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CONTEMPT CASE No.87 of 2025

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed seeking the Court to punish respondent No.2, under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate, violation and willful disobedience of the order made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.15953 of 2024 dated 21.12.2024.

2. Heard Sri Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by its detailed order dated 21.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.15953 of 2024, was pleased to grant temporary bail to the petitioner from 21.12.2024 to 31.12.2024 to enable him to perform the last rites of his late mother as per Hindu customs and that this Court directed that the petitioner be released on executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Authority and imposed conditions such as reporting daily between 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the Shamshabad Police Station during the bail period. The order clearly records the need for the petitioner’s release to perform religious rituals and relies upon his good conduct and compliance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite clear directions of this Court, the petitioner has not been released on temporary bail. The Authorities have cited the existence of pending Prisoner Transit (PT) Warrants in unrelated cases as the reason for non-release. He further submitted that such an interpretation of the order of this Court is legally incorrect and contrary to well-settled principles. As held in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, [(1991) 4 SCC 1], any order of the court, whether right or wrong, must be obeyed unless modified or set aside. The jail authorities cannot impose additional conditions not mentioned in the order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the “golden rule of interpretation” upheld in Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation, [AIR 1966 SC 1678], the words of a judicial Order must be interpreted in their plain, ordinary meaning. The bail order does not mention any restriction regarding PT warrants. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, [AIR 2000 SC 1023], clarified that pending PT warrants cannot obstruct the execution of a valid bail order unless explicitly stated. The petitioner’s release was granted in relation to Crime No.151 of 2024, and the unrelated PT warrants cannot justify the continued detention.

6. He further submitted that the continued incarceration despite a valid bail order infringes the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [AIR 1978 SC 597] . Disobedience of a court order also amounts to contempt, as held in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, [AIR 1978 SC 597] Moreover, the bail was granted specifically for the performance of religious rites, which is a right protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, as reiterated in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, [AIR 1987 SC 748]

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that despite submitting a representation to the concerned authorities on 22.12.2024, the petitioner’s counsel was treated in an inhumane manner and the representation was not accepted. This reflects a willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court, which cannot be accepted in a civilized society. The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2024 without proper evidence or investigation. He is a driver and owner of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle (TS07 UL 5393), earning his livelihood through goods transportation. The FIRs under which he has been implicated primarily under Section 379 IPC do not name him as an accused, nor do they contain any concrete allegations. In fact, he was taken into custody by plain-clothed individuals un