ORDER
M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. We have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned State Public Prosecutor on merits. Though the cause list does not show the appearance of the learned State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, we had earlier directed him to take notice which he has done.
2. It is unfortunate that the petitioner's learned Advocate had to file a contempt proceeding in the present case but the learned Advocate points out to us that it was necessary also from another point of view viz., that there are numerous instances when parties obtain anticipatory bail orders and either the police or the Trial Court refuses to implement them straightaway. For instance, it was brought to our notice that if procedural obstacles are put up, that the whole purpose of the bail order gets frustrated insofar as by default the beneficiary viz., the accused has either been taken into custody or remains in custody. In the present instance, because the learned Magistrate rejected the initial application, the accused was required to remain in custody for a considerable period of time and that damage cannot now be undone. What is pointed out to us is that generally, when an anticipatory bail order is passed either by the High Court or by the Sessions Court, that it is required ipso facto to be obeyed/implemented by the police if they are the arresting authority or by the lower Court before which that order is produced. This position is absolutely right. We need to point out very clearly that if this Courtcomes across a single incident when either a police officer or a judicial officer refuses to respect the anticipatory bail order that is produced that this Court will have no hesitation in taking stringent steps for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act irrespective of who the defaulter is. This is very necessary as otherwise the whole purpose of obtaining the anticipatory bail is totally frustrated.
3. It has been pointed out to us at the Bar that another wrong procedure which is being insisted upon by these authorities is that a fresh bail application be made and that orders be passed on that after which the remaining formalities such as surety etc., are taken up. This procedure is wrong; it is not only cumbersome, unnecessary and time consuming; all that the party or the learned Advocate is required to do is to file a simple application or a memo producing the certified copy of the anticipatory bail order mentioning therein that the requisite formalities such as the production of surety etc. are being complied with. There is no need nor is there any sanction for the authority concerned to reopen the bail question as that has already been decided through the anticipatory bail order. The same procedure will hold good where a superior Court has granted bail in normal course and the copy of the order is produced before the lower authority or Court. We need to clarify this because the learned Advocates present before us made a serious grievance with regard to the wrong procedure that is being followed and they submitted that appropriate directions for correcting the same are necessary.
4. The Judicial Officer in this case who is the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City had originally contended that the accused was remanded by him because the requisite formalities such as the surety etc., had not been complied with. The copy of the application that was filed before the said Court wherein there was a clear undertaking to comply with the formalities was produced before us and we therefore had called for an explanation from the Judicial Officer as to how and under what circumstances, he had taken up the earlier contention which is not supported by the record. Now, the Judicial Officer has accepted his mistake. He has contended that his order dated 31-1-2002 was neither intentional nor was it mala fide. He has expressed his regret for the mistake and he has also tendered his unconditional apology. We however do not approve of the Judicial Officer who seeks to unconditionally apologise for the mistake, still seeking to justify his conduct by contending that the order was 'bona fide and passed in good faith'. It only stands to reason that where the officer has admitted that the order was obviously wrong that he cannot then seek to justify it. We have however ignored his error but, we need to express disapproval of the same.
5. In view of the apology that has been tendered, we treat the case as closed and drop the proceedings. A copy of this order to be forwarded to the Judicial Officer concerned.
6. The learned Advocates present brought to our notice another interesting angle insofar as they submitted that if one or more Advocates are required, to either complain or bring something to the notice of the HighCourt, that they run a serious danger of annoyance to the Judicial Officers concerned who will manifest the same when it conies to the question of either passing discretionary orders or never losing an opportunity to hit back at the Advocates concerned. May we remind the Judicial Officers that where the High Court has taken a magnanimous view and closed the proceedings that the same mental attitude is expected by us from the Judicial Officers concerned and if it conies to our notice that any retributive steps have followed against the learned Advocates who have brought the proceeding to the notice of the High Court, that we shall not hesitate to take very serious action. A lawyer who legitimately brings something to the notice of the High Court either by way of a complaint, a petition or the like or even for that matter, a transfer petition requires to be assured of the fact that he or she will not encounter any danger of retributive action as otherwise it will be impossible for a lawyer to function freely and fearlessly. This protection is necessary and the Judicial Officers shall ensure that it is not infringed upon.
7. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registrar-General to the District Judges who in turn shall bring it to the notice of all the Courts handling criminal cases. Similarly, since many of these bail orders go directly to the Police Authorities, a copy of the same shall be sent to the Director General of Police who in turn shall ensure that it is brought to the notice of all the Police Authorities in the State.
The contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped.