Telangana High Court
Kakunoori Srikanth vs Sri Shiva Kumar Goud on 16 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.87 of 2025
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed seeking the Court to punish
respondent No.2, under the provision of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 for deliberate, violation and willful disobedience of
the order made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.15953 of 2024
dated 21.12.2024.
2. Heard Sri Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this
Court, by its detailed order dated 21.12.2024 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 to 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.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Authority and
SKS,J
imposed conditions such as reporting daily between 10:00 AM
to 12:00 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. Learned 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 for 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 Singh 1, any
order of the court, whether right or wrong, must be obeyed
unless modified 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
(1991) 4 SCC 1
SKS,J
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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah v.
Union of India 3 , clarified 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.151 of 2024, and the unrelated PT warrants cannot
justify 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 4 .
Disobedience of a court order also amounts to contempt, as
held in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly 5 .
Moreover, the bail was granted specifically for the performance
of religious rites, which is a right protected under Article 25 of
AIR 1966 SC 1678
AIR 2000 SC 1023
AIR 1978 SC 597
AIR 1978 SC 597
SKS,J
the Constitution, as reiterated in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of
Kerala 6.
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 willful 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 vehicle, and was later shown as accused in 17 FIRs
from different police jurisdictions with no proper justification.
AIR 1987 SC 748
SKS,J
8. Since his remand, the petitioner has suffered severe
health issues, 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 (NCT) of Delhi, judgment dated 15.05.2024.
9. He further contended that the family of the petitioner,
including his wife and three minor children (one of whom is
an infant), is suffering immensely. The family is below the
poverty 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 to ensure
compliance with its order dated 21.12.2024, release the
petitioner forthwith, and consider taking action against the
authorities who have willfully disobeyed the judicial mandate
and violated the petitioner's fundamental rights.
SKS,J
10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor filed
counter affidavit opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner
has filed the present contempt case claiming that the orders of
this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.15953 of 2024,
dated 21.12.2024, have not been followed. However, the
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, directing his release from 21.12.2024
to 31.12.2024 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.
11. 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
SKS,J
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
case.
12. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the
material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner
filed I.A.No.1 of 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 clarification from this
Court or communicate the necessity of such clarification to
the counsel for the petitioner.
SKS,J
13. The order was passed in special circumstances, and the
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
circumstances. 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.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 16.04.2025
SAI
