P&H High Court Warns Of Contempt Over Police Defiance | DSP Asked To Explain Refusal To Honor Bail Order | Interim Anticipatory Bail Granted
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil, granted interim anticipatory bail to the appellant in a case registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, to explain his conduct regarding non-compliance with an earlier bail order and issued directions for the officer’s personal appearance. The Court ordered that the appellant be released on interim bail subject to conditions, and listed the matter for further consideration.
The matter arose out of an FIR bearing No. 170 dated 24.09.2024 registered at Dhand Police Station, Kaithal under Sections 115, 351(2), 191(3), 126, and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant had earlier filed an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act after his anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal.
Subsequently, on 02.04.2025, the High Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the appellant in CRA-S-1014-2025, directing him to join the investigation within a week from the date of the order. Pursuant to this, the appellant visited the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, on 05.04.2025 to comply with the condition. However, he was allegedly turned away by the officer, who asked him to produce a certified copy of the High Court’s bail order before being allowed to join the investigation.
In the intervening period, the appellant was arrested in a separate FIR No. 726 dated 08.11.2024 registered at Krishna Gate Police Station, Kurukshetra under Sections 115, 118, 61, and 3 of the BNS, 2023, and was remanded to judicial custody.
The State Counsel, when confronted with the issue, argued that the appellant’s allegations were based solely on an oral submission and could not be treated as conclusive. However, in response, counsel for the appellant drew the Court’s attention to a point-wise reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal. In the said reply, the officer had admitted that the appellant, along with his mother and uncle, had visited his office on 05.04.2025 but was verbally instructed to bring the certified copy of the anticipatory bail order.
This development led the Court to examine the conduct of the police officer in refusing to allow the appellant to join the investigation despite a subsisting order of interim protection.
The Court recorded its displeasure over the actions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. It stated that such conduct, particularly in the face of a judicial order, is not only unacceptable but could potentially constitute criminal contempt.
The Bench noted that the order dated 02.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail was binding and required immediate compliance. It took note of the officer's admitted reply acknowledging the appellant’s presence at the office and the verbal instruction issued by him to produce a certified copy of the Court’s order.
The Court stated: “The conduct of DSP, Kaithal is not only condemnable but would tantamount to an attempt to commit contempt of Court particularly criminal contempt.” In light of this, the Court found it necessary to initiate proceedings to seek an explanation from the concerned officer.
The Court directed that a reply be filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, as to why a show cause notice should not be issued against him. It further directed the officer to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
The Court also addressed the circumstances under which the appellant had been arrested in a separate FIR, and the contention raised that the appellant’s arrest was used as a means to bypass the earlier protection granted by the High Court.
In addition to directing compliance with the bail order, the Court acknowledged the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and made applicable certain standard conditions to the interim relief granted.
The Court directed that, in the meantime, the appellant be released on interim anticipatory bail. This relief was made subject to the condition that the appellant shall join the investigation as and when required and furnish personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the trial Court concerned.
The Court also directed that the appellant shall remain bound by the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
These included the requirement to make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, not to make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer, not to leave India without prior permission of the Court, and to comply with any other condition imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.
In view of the admitted reply submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal—acknowledging that the appellant had visited his office on 05.04.2025 but was verbally directed to bring a certified copy of the order—the Court took serious note of the officer’s conduct.
It recorded that such action, particularly in light of the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the High Court in CRA-S-1014-2025, was not only condemnable but would amount to an attempt to commit contempt of Court, particularly criminal contempt.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to file a reply explaining why a show cause notice should not be issued against him.
He was further directed to remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing, which was fixed for 26.05.2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Ayush v. State of Haryana and Another
Case Number: CRA-S-1728-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
[Read/Download order]
