Jharkhand High Court Warns Of Contempt Action Over 'Hooliganism' After Advocate 'Threatens' To Move SC Once Order Is Passed
The Jharkhand High Court has come down heavily on an advocate who, while arguing an anticipatory bail in a land grabbing case, had argued in “loud speech” in the presence of other lawyers present in Court and had “threatened the Court to pass the order and he will go to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”Noting that the conduct of the advocate, Rakesh Kumar, was discernible and...
The Jharkhand High Court has come down heavily on an advocate who, while arguing an anticipatory bail in a land grabbing case, had argued in “loud speech” in the presence of other lawyers present in Court and had “threatened the Court to pass the order and he will go to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
Noting that the conduct of the advocate, Rakesh Kumar, was discernible and warranted initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against him, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stated,
"In the light of above and seeing the conduct of the Advocate-Mr. Rakesh Kumar, if he will be allowed to go scot free, message will go in the society that any thing can be stopped to be delivered by a Judge for if such type of hooliganism is made in the open Court. It is a case where attempt was made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in Court and such type of interference amounts to scandalizing the Court itself, this scandalizing might manifest itself in various ways but in substance it was an attack on Judge, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersion. Such conduct must be punished as contempt. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. This is not a question of particular Single Judge. This is attack on the entire judiciary by a practising advocate.”
Noting that a Single Judge has the fullest jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against a contemner and punish him, the Court added,
“… the Contempt Act has not placed any blanket bar on the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by a Single Judge altogether. It is not as if hereafter the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised at all stages and in each and every case by a Bench of two or more Judges. A Single Judge has not only the power to initiate proceedings for civil contempt or criminal contempt as the case may be but also to adjudicate thereon and punish for the same.”
However, as the members of the Bar, including President and Secretary of the Advocate Association, requested the Court to take a lenient view by giving him a chance and not to initiate criminal contempt case against him, the Court referred the matter to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Bar Council.
Background
The Court was dealing with an anticipatory bail application in which there were serious allegations of grabbing land from an 80 year-old person (informant) against the petitioners. They were subsequently apprehending arrest in relation to offences registered under Sections 191(2) [punishment for rioting], 191(3) [punishment for rioting with deadly weapon], 190 [unlawful assembly], 308(4) [extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt], 324(4) [mischief causing damage between twenty thousand rupees and one lakh rupees], 333 [House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint], 304 [snatching], 352 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace], and 351(2) [punishment for criminal intimidation] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
It was the case of the petitioners that they were falsely implicated in the case which originated from the land dispute between the parties, and that they were the landowners of the land in question.
On the contrary, the State submitted that serious allegations of land grabbing from the informant were made against the petitioners, who also had a substantial criminal record. More importantly, the State submitted that for the land in question, the petitioners had earlier interfered, and in view of that, an FIR was lodged, after which they were granted bail on 04.03.2025. However, even after that, the petitioners threatened the informant at gunpoint to vacate the land and transfer the same in favour of the petitioners.
The Court, however, refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Case Details:
Case Number: A.B.A. No. 5362 of 2025 and another
Case Title: Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Verma v. The State of Jharkhand and another