On 25-09-2025, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi rejected two anticipatory bail applications filed before the Jharkhand High Court. After the rejection, the counsel for the petitioners started misbehaving in Court and threatened to approach the Supreme Court regarding the same.
The petitioners had appeared before the Court apprehending their arrest with reference to an FIR filed under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(4), 324(4), 333, 304, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The petitioners submitted that they had been falsely accused and that they had entered into a scuffle with the informant due to a land dispute. It was also submitted that the Circle Office Report mentioned that the disputed land belonged to the petitioners. The State (respondent) opposed the petitioners’ prayers, claiming that they had allegedly usurped the land of the informant, who was approximately 80 years old.
The informant stated that the petitioners had earlier interfered in a matter concerning the disputed land, for which an FIR was lodged, but were granted bail. Thereafter, the petitioners again threatened the informant at gunpoint to vacate the land and transfer it in their favour.
The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioners were serious and that they also had criminal antecedents. Thus, the court rejected the application for anticipatory bail.
Upon the pronouncement of said order, the counsel for the petitioners started arguing loudly and threatened the Court that he would approach the Supreme Court once the order was passed. Considering this, the Court found it fit to initiate a criminal contempt proceeding against him.
Further, the Court stated that a Single Judge has not only the power to initiate proceedings for civil or criminal contempt but also to adjudicate on them and punish accordingly. The Court referred to P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (1988) 3 SCC 167 and stated that an interference in the due administration of justice amounts to scandalizing the Court itself. It was also said that the attack was directed at the Judge, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersion.
The Court went on to state that this was an attack on the entire judiciary by a practising advocate. It was also noted that many members of the Bar requested the Court to abstain from initiating contempt proceedings against the advocate and to take a lenient view. Considering the requests, the Court did not initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the counsel, but referred the matter to the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council.
Appearances:
For Petitioners : Adv Rakesh Kumar
For Respondents : APP Lily Sahay, Adv Rahul Lamba, Adv Anish Kamal, Adv Aditya M. Khandelwal
