- (1.) Heard Mrs. Manju Sree Robinson appellant in person and Sri Chaudhary Shatrughan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing the respondent-contemner.
(2.) The appellant, while pressing the present appeal, preferred under the Rules of the Court ( Chapter-VIII Rule-5 of the High Court Rules), submits that the respondent-contemner had violated the judgment and order dated 3.10.2013, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8678 (M/B) of 2013. She submits that without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and calling a report from the Prrosecuting Officer, the contemner has granted bail to the accused in utter disregard to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 3.10.2013 in Writ Petition No. 8678 (M/B) of 2012. She further submits that while entertaining the present appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, had recorded a finding that prima-facie case is made out to proceed against the contemner. Since the respondent-contemner did not call for a report from the Prosecuting Officer, for which specific specific direction was given by this Court . She further submits that the bail granted to the accused by the respondent is not sustainable, since while granting bail, some relevant issues have not been dealt with by the presiding officer. She further submits that in no way, bail could have been granted by the respondent-contemner while deciding the bail application preferred by the accused.
(3.) It appears that being aggrieved by the order of bail granted by the respondent-contemner, the appellant preferred a contempt petition before the contempt judge of this Court, who by the impugned order dated 3.3.2014, recorded a finding that no interference is called for under the contempt jurisdiction, since no case is made out against the respondent-contemner, who had passed a detailed order, after hearing the parties, while granting bail. It is submitted that the contempt judge had not exercised its jurisdiction properly while rejecting the contempt petition at the initial stage. The appellant relied upon the Apex Court judgment decided on 9.12.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Subrata Roy Sahara and others, 2006 5 SCC 399, Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others. The case of Midnapore has been referred by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel while defending the judicial officer. She had further laid great stress upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 7.3.2014, in the present proceedings, whereby a prima-facie finding has been recorded while issuing notice to the respondent-contemner.;