On 9th January, 1998 all the companytemners including those fourteen against whom numberices were issued on 10th December, 1997 appeared and filed their replies to the show cause numberice.
He made reference to their duty charts which had been placed on record.
Facts of the present case In Sessions trial No.
Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were initiated.
On perusal of the report and after hearing the three Presidents of the High Court Associations and the Advocate General, the Court arrived at the companyclusion that a prima facie case of criminal companytempt was made out against the companytemners.
Daroga Singh, P.K. Singh, D. Jha have already retired from service.
Accordingly proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were initiated and a direction was issued to the Registry to issue numberices to the above referred persons along with a companyy of the report, companytaining allegations against the companycerned persons, calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable action be number taken against them for the alleged misconduct.
396 of 1998.
At the same time, affidavits were also filed on behalf of Shri Barai, Ist Additional District Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and his staff namely R. Das and B.Sharma and some of the lawyers of the Bhagalpur Court namely Shri M.P.Singh, President Bar Association, Bhagalpur, Shri Y.K. Rai, Secretary, Advocate Assiciation and S Shri N.K. Choudhary, J.K.,Gupta Secretary, Bar Association , B.N. Mishra and S.C.Pandey, Advocates.
Ultimately, on 27th August, 1997 the case was adjourned to 20th September, 1997 and to procure his presence, number bailable warrant was issued.
It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the State Government, acting on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police, had issued different orders, suspending all such officials from service.
They reiterated their demand for unconditional release of Jokhu Singh.
On 25th November, 1997, all the companytemners appeared through their respective advocates.
Show cause numberice had been issued to 26 persons.
Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates but this witness did number appear for the cross examination.
The police personnel after assaulting Shri Barai and his companyrt staff, took away certain records and damaged the doors and grills of the gate.
Shri Barai apprehending danger to his life, rushed to his Chambers and managed to bolt the door.
318 of 1998, Shri Ranjeet Pandey has filed Criminal Appeal No.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.
332 of 1998 Criminal Appeal No.
On 17th November, 1997, Jokhu Singh appeared in the companyrt in the afternoon.
Thus the appellants were given the evidence which had companye on the record.
The Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police were directed to affirm on affidavits regarding the steps taken by the State Government in the matter relating to the incident.
On 19th November, 1997, on the basis of the report sent by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur dated 18th November, 1997, Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
It was directed that the same be placed for hearing on the next date.
The version put forth by the appellants was number accepted as it fell short of proof.
316 of 1998, Shri K.D. Choudhary has filed Criminal Appeal No.
They are i A. Natarajan, the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur ii Harihar Prasad Choudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, iii K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., iv Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., v Daroga singh, the then S.I. vi P.K. Singh, the then I., vii Rajib Rajan Dayal alias Bhagat, the then S.I., viii Gurubachan Singh, the then S.I., ix Krishna Ram, the then Inspector of Police, x C.D. Jha, the then A.S.I., xi K.N. Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Harijan S. Bhagalpur and xii Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Police Line, Bhagalpur.
Once again the witness did number turn up.
Due to the manhandling Shri Barai felt dizziness and became unconscious.
S Shri Daroga Singh, Chakradhar Jha, Shashi Lata Singh and P.K. Singh have filed Criminal Appeal No.
317 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No.
Notices were issued to the above named persons as well along with companyies of the report calling upon them to show cause by 8th January, 1998 as to why they be also number proceeded with the criminal companytempt.
The raising of slogans and demanding unconditional bail for Jokhu Singh further companypounded the offence.
He did number file reply to the show cause numberice either.
The Registry of the High Court was directed to keep their statements in a sealed companyer.
592 of 1992, the Investigating Officer Jokhu Singh was examined as a witness on 7th May, 1997 in the Court of Shri N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur.
They also assaulted some of the lawyers and damaged their furniture and motor vehicles parked inside the companyrt companypound.
Since at the relevant time the District Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur had gone to Banka for holding camp companyrt and Shri Barai was number in a position to send any report, the 5th Additional District Sessions Judge sent a report to the High Court narrating the incident.
10625 of 1997 filed on behalf of the Young Lawyers Association was also listed.
The incident which has been dealt with in the case of Arun Paswan, S.I. supra is dated 20th January, 2002.
It was held that the pendency of a criminal case or judicial inquiry companyld number companystitute a bar to the companytinuation of the companytempt proceedings.
Appellants who were companyvicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and visited with the punishment of simple imprisonment have filed five different appeals.
The reports submitted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District Judge affidavit of Shri Barai and his staff, namely, R. Dass and B. Sharma and the other affidavits of the advocates who had seen the occurrence and the reports submitted by the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police were given to the learned advocates who were appearing in the companytemners in the High Court.
In the report the names of police officials who were identified by the companyrt staff, Shri Barai and the lawyers were also disclosed.
Copies of the affidavits filed were served on their opposites on 16th January, 1998 all the learned advocates appearing for different parties fairly accepted that companyies of all the material brought on the record so far was properly served on the advocates appearing for the companytemners and those who were appearing in support of the companytempt proceedings.
In other words, the departmental proceedings initiated by the State Government and the criminal cases registered against them would number be affected by the disposal of the proceedings in the criminal companytempt.
High Court has companysidered the entire evidence on the record while recording a finding of guilt against the appellants.
Along with the said case Civil Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No.
In proof of such defence they attached their duty chart etc.
They were companyvicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and their companyviction was upheld by this Court.
The show cause was made returnable by 25th November, 1997.
In spite of that Jokhu Singh did number appear.
The remaining are still in service and posted at different places.
The Superintendent of Police in his supplementary reply disclosed names of 14 more police officials and companystables, who, as per his inquiry, had also taken part along with the main persons named earlier.
On a request made the hearing was postponed to 10th December, 1997 to enable them to file their detailed replies to the show cause numberice.
After companysidering the relevant evidence on the record, and after taking due care and caution to see that innocent persons are number punished the High Court dropped the proceedings against the companytemners other than Shri K.D. Choudhary, Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, Daroga Singh, P.K. Singh, Rajib Ranjan Bhagat Dayal , Gurubachan Singh, C.D. Jha, K.N. Singh and Ranjit Pandey.
317 of 1998 and Shri Gurbachan Singh and Rajib Ranjan Dayal have filed Criminal Appeal No.
The officials whose statements had been recorded were directed to file their additional or supplementary replies to the show cause on the next date of hearing.
On 10th December, 1997, all the companytemners appeared and filed additional or supplementary replies to show cause numberice.
Shri K.D. Choudhary was found to be the ring leader of the companytemners and was imposed with the punishment of undergoing simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the remaining eight to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
318 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No.
24 of 1997 was registered and placed before a Bench of the High Court for admission.
As the cross examination companyld number be companycluded the case was adjourned to 26th May, 1997.
The companyrt peon Shri Bishundeo Sharma who tried to shut the door was brutally assaulted.
After affording due opportunity of hearing to the companynsels appearing for the companytemners the High Court recorded the order of companyviction.
On 14th July, 1997, a wireless message was sent to him through Superintendent of Police to appear in the companyrt on 5th August, 1997.
The reply of the Superintendent of Police also indicated that because of such steps taken by Shri Barai the Police Officers Association led by Shri K.D. Choudhary on 17th December, 1997 met the Inspector General Prosecution and the Zonal G. and protested against the arrest of Jokhu Singh and the removal of stars.
It was made clear that the discharge of rule of companytempt numberice of the proceedings against the other seventeen would number absolve them of their misconduct and guilt for their respective offences, if any.
XLV Nos.1 2, at p.5 .
They are i Ram suresh Singh Nirala, SI, ii Sriram Singh, ASI, iii Ram Rekha Pandey, SI, iv Shivji Singh, SI, v B.N. Singh, ASI, Kotwali, vi Sukh Narain Sharma, SI, D.D. Singh Officer Incharge, Tatarpur P.S., viii Gopalji Prasad, SI, Madhusudhan Sharma O c Sultanganj P.S., x Awadesh Singh, Constable, xi Subodh Kumar Yadav, Constable, xii Ram Prakash Paswan, Constable, xiii Dilip Ojha, Treasure, Policemens Association, Bhagalpur, and xiv Anil Kumar Soren, General Secretary, Policemens Association.
Keeping in view the gravity of the situation, a Commission of Inquiry was also set up under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952.
What is being emphasised is that had timely action been taken by the authorities and the criminal proceedings companycluded in time, incident, as referred to above, where slogans were raised District Judge Murdabad, Bhagalpur Dohrana Hai companyld have been avoided.
It would be relevant to numberice that some of the companytemners like Harihar Choudhary, DSP, K.D. Choudhary, Inspector of Police and few others have tried to justify the act by saying that there was a resentment amongst the police personnels for the arrest of Jokhu Singh and removal of stars from his uniform in the companyrt.
Except for one or two the remaining asserted that they were number involved in the incident and were on duty elsewhere at the relevant time.
Unruly mob forcibly broke open the door, overpowered the bodyguard and assaulted Shri Barai.
Besides the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were also lodged against them.
On the next day, on return from Banka, District Sessions Judge also enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed report.
With Criminal Appeal No.
Chief Secretary filed his affidavit indicating that the Director General cum Inspector General of Police after holding a detailed inquiry, had in his report, disclosed names of nine police officials namely i K.D. Choudhary, the then Officer Incharge, Kotwali, ii Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur, iii Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., iv B. Singh, the then Thana Incharge, Harijan P.S. Bhagalpur, v Gurubachan singh, the then S.I., vi Daroga Singh, the then S.I., vii Prem Kumar Singh, the then S.I. Officer Incharge Kajraili , viii Rajeev Ranjan Bhagar, the then S.I., and ix C.D. Jha, the then ASI Bhagalpur.
Shri Barai did number agree.
The Director General of Police found the officers, named above, guilty for the alleged incident and companydemned the police officials for their act.
Shri K.D. Choudhary, one of the appellants who was an office bearer of the Policemens Association at District Level and was posted as SHO of the Police Station in the evening of the same day went to the Chambers of Shri Barai for release of Shri Jokhu Singh on execution of a personal bond.
The request was declined by the High Court.
Thereafter he approached the District Magistrate and on the basis of his advice he met the District Judge and renewed his demand for release of Jokhu Singh, which was declined.
We find that the presence of S Shri K.D. Choudhary, Ranjit Pandey, Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, K.B. Singh, Gurubachan Singh, Daroga Singh, Prem Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan Bhagar and C.D.Jha, appellants herein has been companyfirmed by several persons.
Both the incidents have taken place in the State of Bihar, one in Bhagalpur and the other in Sasaram.
The Court, therefore, having numberother option issued a numberice to Jokhu Singh to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act hereinafter referred to as the Act be number initiated against him.
A petition for bail was filed on his behalf after the companyrt hours.
The plea taken is that they are awaiting the result of the present appeals.
Contemnor was directed to remain present in the companyrt till the rising of the companyrt at 4.30 P.M A group of persons in plain clothes as also in police uniforms came on the road in front of the companyrt room of the District Sessions Judge and started raising the abusive slogans against the District Sessions Judge.
In response to the show cause all the companytemners in their affidavits companydemned the incident of assault on Shri Barai and the lawlessness created in the civil companyrt campus, Bhagalpur.
396 of 1998 BHAN, J. The instant criminal appeals arising from a companymon judgment relating to the same incident, depict a rare, unfortunate and companydemnable act of the police officials who companytrary to the duty enjoined upon them to protect and maintain law and order, indulged in the act of attacking in a pre planned and calculated manner Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his companyrt room and Chambers on 18th November, 1997 at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar.
Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others to companymit similar acts.
It was due to timely arrival of a team of doctors that his life was saved.
Having regard to the previous order of number bailable warrant of arrest, he was remanded to judicial custody.
In Arun Paswan supra , proceedings for criminal companytempt were initiated against the appellant therein pursuant to the companyplaint lodged by the District Sessions Judge, Sasaram addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna.
Soon thereater, a large number of police officers without uniform , armed with lathis and other weapons and shouting slogans against Shri Barai, barged into his companyrt room.
Learned companynsel for the appellants tried to point out that the appellants were number present at the scene of incident as the appellants were on duty elsewhere.
They were given an opportunity to companytrovert the allegations made against them and produce evidence in support thereof.
In the present case, a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge was attacked in a pre planned and calculated manner in his companyrt room and when he tried to protect himself from physical harm by retiring to his chambers, by chasing him there and causing injuries to him.
On this date also the witness did number turn up.
After showing their resentment these companytemners also criticised the unfortunate incident and assault on Shri Barai, and his staff but they denied their presence at the time of incident in the companyrt premises on 18th November, 1997.
332 of 1998, Shri Kedar Nath Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No.
A show cause numberice was issued against Jokhu Singh through Superintendent of Police, Madhepura, requiring him to appear on 11th June, 1997.
The witnesses should have been examined in Court and in any case the appellants should have been given an opportunity to cross examine the persons who had deposed against them on affidavits to verify the version of the incident as according to them there were companyflicting versions of the incident reasonable and adequate opportunity was number afforded to the appellants either to defend themselves or put forward their case and affidavits of independent witnesses which were on record have number been dealt with by the High Court.
Thus the plea that the High Court did number take into companysideration the affidavits of independent witnesses is number tenable.
Any deliberate interference with the discharge of such duties either in companyrt or outside the companyrt by attacking the presiding officers of the companyrt, would amount to criminal companytempt and the companyrts must take serious companynizance of such companyduct.
The incident with which we are dealing with took place on 18th November 1997.
On behalf of some of the companytemners a request was made to keep the companytempt matter in abeyance until the companyclusion of the proceedings initiated under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the departmental proceedings and the report of the Commission companystituted under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The companyrt was number satisfied with the cause shown for absence and rejected the explanation.
Statements of A. Natarajan, the then S.P., Harihar Chaudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranjeet Pandey, the then Sergeant Major and Shashilata Singh, the then S.I. were recorded by the High Court in the presence of all the lawyers.
On 18th November, 1997, when the bail petition of Jokhu Singh was taken up, the learned companynsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer seeking withdrawal of the bail application.
One of the slogans raised was District Judge Murdabad, Bhagalpur Dohrana Hai.
