Jharkhand High Court: While dealing with an anticipatory bail application, filed by the petitioners, in which allegations with respect to grabbing land of an 80-year-old informant were concerned, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., observed that such types of crime were very rampant in the State of Jharkhand and thus, rejected the same.
Further, the Court stated that when the above-mentioned order was being passed, the petitioners’ counsel argued in loud speech threatening to go to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Court criticized the hooliganism made in open Court, which was witnessed by all the advocates present there. The Court on the request of the Members of the Bar, took a lenient view, and referred the matter to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Bar Council to look into it accordingly.
Background
In the present case, the petitioners were apprehending their arrest in connection with offence registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(4), 324(4), 333, 304, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) which was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners were landowners of the land in question and scuffles took place due to land dispute between the parties. He further stated that the mobile tower location of the petitioners and informant were not found at the spot on the date of occurrence. Further, in the Circle Office Report, the land in question was said to be of the petitioners, thus they should be granted anticipatory bail.
The State counsel contended that allegations of grabbing the land of the informant, made against the petitioners were serious in nature and they even had criminal antecedent.
The informant contended that regarding the land in question, earlier the petitioners interfered for which an FIR was lodged and thereafter the petitioners were granted bail in that case. The petitioners threatened the informant on the gun point to vacate the land and transfer the land in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that informant was aged about 80 years old and petitioners were having criminal antecedent and in view of that, the petitioners might not be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.
Analysis and Decision
The Court expressed that such types of crime were very rampant in the State of Jharkhand and held that anticipatory bail would not be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for the same was rejected.
Further, the Court emphasized that when it dictated the order rejecting the anticipatory bail, the counsel for the petitioners started arguing in loud speech, which was witnessed by all the lawyers present in the Court. The advocate concerned had threatened the Court that he would go to the Supreme Court.
The Court found this case as a fit one to initiate the criminal contempt proceeding against the advocate concerned. Further, the Court opined that a Single Judge of the High Court had the fullest jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt against a contemner and issue notice in furtherance of it. Not only that, but a Single Judge was also entitled to adjudicate thereon and punish the contemner, if necessary. However, the Contempt Act, 1971 had not placed any blanket bar on the exercise of contempt jurisdiction by a Single Judge altogether. It was not as if hereafter the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court was to be exercised at all stages and in each and every case by a Bench of two or more Judges.
The Court opined that if the advocate concerned would be allowed to go scot free, message would go in the society that anything could be stopped to be delivered by a Judge for if such type of hooliganism was made in the open Court. The Court stated that it was a case where attempt was made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in Court and such type of interference amounted to scandalizing the Court itself, this scandalizing could manifest itself in various ways but in substance it was an attack on Judge, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersion. Thus, the Court specified that such conduct ought to be punished as contempt.
The Court highlighted that the foundation of the judiciary was the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice; it was not a question of a particular Single Judge but was an attack on the entire judiciary by a practicing advocate.
Considering that many members of the Bar including President and Secretary of the Advocate Association requested the Court to give one chance to the advocate concerned and not to initiate criminal contempt case against him taking a lenient view assuring he would not do such type of things in future, the Court did not proceed in criminal contempt. However, the Court held that the Jharkhand State Bar Council should take care of his conduct. The Court, thus, referred the matter to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Bar Council to look into it accordingly.
[Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, A.B.A. No. 5362 of 2025, decided on 25-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Lily Sahay, A.P.P, Rahul Lamba, Advocate, Anish Kamal, Advocate and Aditya M. Khandelwal, Advocate