The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CONTEMPT CASE No.87 of2025 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed seeking the Court to punish respondent No.2, under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 7977 for deliberate, violalion and willful disobedience of the order macle in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.15953 ot 2024 dated 2l .12.2024.

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

3. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by its detailed order dated 2I.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 tr> 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.50,0OO/- 10 the satisfaction of the concerned Authority and \ .- ^ .1 2 sKs,J C.C.I{o.47 of2025 imposed conditions such as reporting daily between 10:00 AM - to 12:OO 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. karned 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 lor 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 Singht, any order of the court, whether right or wrong, must be obeyed unless modihed 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 ' (rssr) + scc r 3 SRS,J C.C.No.a7 of2025 Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation 2 , 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 Honble Supreme Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India3, clarihed 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.l5l of 2024, and the unrelated PI warrants cannot justiry 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 a . Disobedience of a court order also amounts to contempt, as held in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarah Nath Gangulys. Moreover, the bail was granted specifically for the performance of religious rites, which is a right protected under Article 25 of ' etR tge6 sc lezs ' ntR 2ooo sc 102: ' arR tgzg sc sgz ' erR rgzS sc sgu { \ -*^.i SKTi,J C.C. o.87 of 2025 the Constitution, as reiterated in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Keralao. -

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 wiltful 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 under the pretext of hiring his vihicle, and was later shown as accused in I7 FIRs from different police jurisdictions with no proper justihcation. ' arn tgaz sc z+8 5 SKS,J C.C.No.87 of 2025

8. Since ltis remand, the petitioner has suffered severe health issucs, including a hypertensive emergency, and has been under observation in Gandhi Hospital. Despite his medical condition and the absence of credible evidence, he continues to be detained in judicial custody. The entire action of the police reflects an abuse of power, lack of proper investigation, and a violation of established legal norms. The respondent police have not followed the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in prabir Turkayastha v. State (NCTf of Delhi, judgment dated 15.05.2O24.

9. He further contended that tJle family of the petitioner, including his wife alrd three minor children (one of whom is an infant), is suffering immensely. The family is below the poverly line and has no support system. The petitioner's livelihood has been affected due to the seizure of his only means of income his goods carrier vehicle. Therefore, he prayed the Court to take appropriate action Lo ensure compliance u,ith its order dated 21.12.2024, release the petitioner forthwith, and consider taking action against the authorities who have willfully disobef tJle judicial mandate and violated the petitioner,s fundamental rights. 6 sI(sr, C.C.No.87 of 2025 l

10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor hled counter affidavit opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner has hled the present contempt case claiming that the orders of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No. 15953 of 2O24 ' dated 2 I . 12.2024, have not been followed. However, t}re contempt petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts' This Court had granted temporary bail to the petitioner in Crime No. 151 of 2024, direcling his release from 21.12'2024 to 37.12.2024 upon execution of a personal bond. The release order was received and processed, but the petitioner could not be released as he was already in judicial custody in eleven other criminal cases registered at various police stations' Since there were no bail orders in those cases, he continued to remain in jail. I 1. He further submitted that there has been no willful disobedience of the order of this Court. The authorities have complied with the directions in the case where bail was granted, but were legally bound to retain custody of the petitioner due to other pending remand orders. The allegations made in the contempt petition are false and 7 SKS,J C.C.Ito.87 of 2025 misleading. The respondent has the highest regard for the orders of this Court and has not violated any directions at any point. Therefore he prayed the Court to dismiss the contempt CASC

12. Upon consideration of t1-e submissions made by the iearned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner filed I.A.No. I ol 2024 in Crl.P.No.15953 of 2024 seeking temporary bail. However, the petitioner did not disclose pendency of other criminal cases registered against him in the said interlocutory application. Consequently, this Court passed an order directing release of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.151 of 2024 only. Be that as it may, considering that the order for temporary bail was granted on humanitarian grounds, namely to enable the petitioner to perform the last rites of his deceased mother, it was incumbent upon the Superintendent, Central prison, Hyderabad, to either seek appropriate clarihcation from this Court or communicate the necessity of such clarilication to the counsel for the petitioner. C sl{s,J C-C.No.87 of 2025

13. The order was passed in special circumstances, and the -tl non-implementation of the same due to lack of proper communication between the respondent and the petitioner's counsel has effectively frustrated the very purpose for which the order was granted. The respondent, therefore, ought to have acted diligently and responsibly in the given circumstarces. Accordingly, while this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the matter, it is observed that respondent No.2 is hereby cautioned to exercise greater care and caution in the future in implementing the orders of the Court, especially those passed under exceptional and urgent situations.

14. In view of the above, the contempt case is hereby closed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SO/- A,V.S. PRASAD OEPUTY REGISTRAR j SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 Two CD CoPies AR/gh w T HIGH COURT DATED:16/0 4tz1?s ORDER CC.No.87 of 2O2S i i I l o^ ( ( IHE S DI o t. -,lr 1O JUL 2M i r,.r ,ll: *o CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS. G rd4 Vk 6flo