IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J - (1.) The contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the letter/complaint made by the contemnors Anil Kumar and Bal Kishan Giri addressed to Hon. Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17.8.2009 and 14.8.2009 respectively. The genesis of the complaint made by the contemnors pertains to case crime No. 190 of 2008 under section 364, 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 411, 404 IPC read with section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. It would transpire that the report of the occurrence was lodged by the contemnor at P.S.Baleni District Baghpat on 23.5.2008 alleging that his younger brother Sunil Kumar along with two others namely Puneet Gir and Sudhir Ujjawal were brutally murdered at about 10 p.m.
(2.) On 22.5.2009 and their bodies were recovered from the car which was found abandoned near the Bridge of Hindon river. It was apprehended in the F.I.R that someone who were inimical to them had murdered them brutally by sharp edged weapon. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused in the triple murder case whose name transpired during investigation, belonged to very influential family of Meerut and three Judges of this Court namely Mr. Justice S.K. Jain, Mr. Justice V.K.Verma and Mr. Justice S.C.Nigam were known to the family and had proximity with the members of the said family on account of their posting at Meerut at one time or the other before elevation. It is further alleged that Mr. Justice V.K.Verma had admitted to bail two of the accused persons namely Rizwan and Wasim vide bail application No. 924 of 2009 and 1238 of 2009 on 17.7.2009 illegally and with ulterior motives despite the fact that the family of the accused was known to him while posted at Meerut.
(3.) It is further alleged that all the three Judges of this Court have been amenable to the wishes of Sri V.P.Srivastava, Senior Advocate of this Court and on account of clout of the aforesaid V.P.Srivastava; the Judges of this Court have admitted the accused to bail. It is prayed in the complaint that the bail application nos. 20781 of 2009, 20782 of 2009 and 20783 of 2009 may be recalled from the aforesaid Judges and may be assigned to some senior Judge of repute for hearing and disposal. On similar lines is the complaint made by Balkishan Giri, Advocate arrayed as contemnor no.2. However, the contemnor Balkishan Giri in his complaint has made serious allegation against justice S.K. Jain to the exclusion of two other Judges namely Justice V.K.Verma and Justice S.C.Nigam, Upon receipt of the complaint made by Anil Kumar and Bal Kishan Giri, Hon. Chief Justice passed the order dated 8.9.2009 to the effect "place it on the judicial file". On 12.11.2009, while taking up the application Nos 252730 of 2009 and 252736 of 2009 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20781 of 2009, Afzal Vs. State of U.P., 20782 of 2009 Badruddin Vs. state of U.P and 20783 of 2009 Mehraj Vs. State of U.P., the Division Bench consisting of Hon. C.K.Prasad C.J and Hon. Sanjay Misra, J, following order was passed- "A letter dated 14th August, 2009 written by Balkishan Giri an Advocate as also a letter dated 17th of August 2009 written by Anil Kumar, prima facie, show commission of criminal contempt. Issue notice to Balkishan Giri as also Anil Kumar as to why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated against them. Cause if any, be filed by 23rd Nov 2009. List it for consideration on 25th of November, 2009. A separate case be registered in this regard." As stated in the order dated 7.12.2009 on which date detailed order was passed consequent upon the prayer of the contemnor seeking discharge, it has been mentioned that the learned counsel stated across the bar that the charges be not framed as the contemners have pleaded guilty and they do not claim to be tried. It is also mentioned that the learned counsel also drew attention to the affidavits filed by the contemners in which they have admitted to their guilt and pleaded for being purged of the charges by accepting unqualified apology. Their prayer for discharge was premised on the ground that on account of murders of their close relatives, they were not in a mentally fit state and had made allegations without intending to mean what they had stated in the complaint. Despite being cautioned that cognizance of the matter has already been taken by the order passed by the Bench presided over by Hon. Chief Justice, the learned counsel did not budge from the earlier stand.;