SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA
Sarita Swami – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, a judicial officer.
3. The bail application was decided by the judicial officer arising from the FIR No.203/2020 for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
4. The High Court noted that the charge sheet against the accused under Section 304, IPC had not been filed though it was observed that that was the position, on the basis of the case diary. The Court, while cancelling the bail, has made some observations against the learned Judge who is the appellant before us.
5. In our view, the observations are not called for in the given scenario and in fact it is such an approach which discourages the trial Courts in g
6. We thus, have no hesitation in setting aside the observations made against the appellant and consequently, even the directions contained in the impugned order against the appellant are set aside.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.