Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Seemant Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh PS & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2023 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl,) No. 6572 of 2022)
With
The State Of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh P.S. & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 6253 of 2022)
With
J. Manjunath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal appeal no. 874 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 6573 of 2022)
Decided on : 21-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail proceedings – Adverse remarks – Prayer for expunction – Bail proceedings, unlike a full criminal trial, are burdened with task of only forming a prima facie view on merits of case – In such a circumstance when evidence is not fully analyzed and presumption of innocence is still operational in favour of accused, courts must then be extremely cautious in passing adverse remarks against accused – This becomes especially important in cases where party against whom remarks are passed do not have a lis in said proceedings, for such comments, especially if passed by constitutional courts, can cause great injury to reputation of parties at receiving end of such remarks – A court of bail, especially in cases where bail is sought for by a third party, is not a court that has all relevant information to pass order on merits of an unconnected party – Such an order, if passed, has potential to cause great harm to said party without them being afforded an actual and meaningful opportunity to defend themselves – Any party, when being accused of an illegal act, must be given opportunity be fairly heard – Remarks passed in court, due to live broadcasting of court proceedings, now have ramifications that are far reaching – It is essential for courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against parties involved and must do so with proper justification, in right forum and only if it is necessary to meet ends of justice – Not only are adverse remarks passed by High Court against Appellants is liable to be expunged, but impugned interim order itself is liable to be quashed – Impugned order quashed. (Paras 14, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Present three Appeals are directed against the interim order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Criminal Petition No. 4909 of 2022, whereby adverse remarks were made by Single Judge of the High Court against the Appellants, and a direction was issued to the CBI, mandating them to investigate the past records of one of the Appellants.
Findings of Court:
In light of the previous order dated 18.07.2022 passed by this court, we presume that the bail proceedings of the Respondent No.1 stands concluded. However, since there is no indication of the outcome of the bail proceedings, if the same has not already been decided, we request High Court to expeditiously conclude the bail proceedings in accordance with law on its own merits without being prejudiced or influenced by this judgment.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present three Appeals are directed against the interim order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Petition No. 4909 of 2022, whereby adverse remarks were made by the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court against the Appellants, and a direction was issued to the CBI, mandating them to investigate the past records of one of the Appellants.
3. The Appellant in SLP (CRL.) No. 6253 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as Appellant No. 1), is the State of Karnataka and the Appellant in SLP No. 6572 of 2022, one Mr. Seemant Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Appellant No. 2), is a senior IPS officer with 26 years of service, and is currently the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Appellant in SLP (Crl) 6573 of 2022, one Mr. J. Manjunath (hereinafter referred to as Appellant No. 3), is the District Collector for the city of Bangalore. The Respondent Mahesh PS (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1) .
4. Briefly, the facts relevant for the present appeals are that during the pendency of bail proceedings of Respondent No.1, who is a police officer alleged to have taken a bribe, the High Court vide impugned interim order dated 07.07.2022 made adverse remarks against the Appellants, who had no lis in the above-mentioned bail proceedings.
5. On 20.05.2022, an FIR was registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act against the Respondent No.1 herein, for allegedly demanding a bribe from the informant. The respondent no.1 was subsequently taken into custody.
6. The respondent No.1 then filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC in the High Court. Notice was issued by the High Court in the said case, and on 22.06.2022, during the bail proceedings, the High Court issued an oral summons against the Appellants herein seeking their appearance in court. It is important to note that the Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 are not arraigned as accused persons in the said case and have no connection with the bail proceedings.
7. During the same bail proceedings, on 04.07.2022, the High Court made adverse remarks against the Appellants herein. These remarks made by the High Court were widely reported in the media and caused injury to the reputation of the Appellants.
8. Subsequently, on 07.07.2022, the High Court while making further adverse remarks against the Appellants, also directed the CBI to place a report of the past investigations conducted against the Appellant No. 2, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant No.2 to be heard.
9. It is however important to note that Appellant No.3 stands on a slightly different footing from the other Appellants, in so far as that the Appellant No.3, after the initial investigation, was arrayed as an Accused in the abovementioned case. In the same breath however, it must also be kept in mind that the Appellant No.3, even though is an accused in the said alleged crime, was not a party to the abovementioned bail proceedings in the High Court.
10. Through the present Appeals filed before this court, the Appellants seek for the remarks made by the High Court against them to be expunged.
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PRESENT APPEALS
11. At the very outset, we would like to clarify that in the present appeals, we are only concerned with the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellants and the subsequent directions issued to the counsel of CBI against the Appellant No.2. The substantive prayer for bail sought for by the respondent No.1 is not being entertained by this court at the present, and the proceedings for the same are ongoing in the High Court.
12. In the aftermath of the aforesaid proceedings, this court is now tasked with answering two questions in the present Appeals.
I. Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellants during the bail proceedings of the respondent No. 1 is liable to be expunged?
(1) Bail proceedings – When evidence is not fully analyzed and presumption of innocence is still operational in favour of accused, courts must then be extremely cautious in passing adverse remarks ag....
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
(1) Disposal of bail applications – Constitutional Courts can lay down principles governing grant of bail or anticipatory bail – However, Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with discretion of our....
Judicial remarks that adversely affect a party's reputation must be made with caution, ensuring the party has an opportunity to defend themselves, and should only be necessary for the adjudication of....
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
Public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective; and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of a....
Remarks by higher courts against subordinate judicial officers must be necessary and justified to uphold judicial dignity and independence.
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
