IMPORTANT POINT
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 the case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Lawande appearing along with Mr. Pradosh Dangui and Ms. Joglekar for the Petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pravin Faldessai appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Deshprabhu for Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 750 of 2023 (F) and Mr. Siddharth Sardesai for Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 751 of 2023 (F).

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Both these Petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as the issue involved in both these Petitions is limited to the observations made by the learned Trial Court qua the Petitioner in both the Bail Applications.

3. Both these Petitions are filed challenging the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda while deciding the Bail Applications.

4. The Petitioner herein is a Police Officer and at the relevant time, he was posted at Mardol Police Station. Crime No. 7/2023 was registered on 6/8/2023 in connection with a motor vehicular accident at Banastarim Bridge wherein some persons were injured and even three persons died on the spot.

5. The challenge in these Petitions is only with regard to the observations of the learned Trial Court qua the Petitioner who was incharge of Mardol Police Station at the relevant time.

6. These observations are found only in one paragraph of the orders passed in the Bail Applications filed by the Accused persons namely, Mr. Ganesh Lamani and Mr. Amit Palekar.

7. Mr. Lawande appearing for the Petitioner would submit that first of all, the Petitioner was not a party to both the Bail Applications filed before the learned Trial Court by Respondent No. 4. It is submitted that before making such observations, the Petitioner was not called upon or given any notice.

8. Mr. Lawande would submit that initially, while the Petitioner was incharge of Mardol Police Station, in fact, he registered the FIR against the driver as well as the owner of the said car and then started the investigations. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Crime Branch, which took over the investigation from the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner was not connected with the investigations or even the filing of the Bail Applications.

9. Mr. Lawande would then submit that the incident took place on 6/8/2023 and immediately, FIR was lodged by the Petitioner at 3:30 a.m. on 7/8/2023 vide Crime No. 7/2023 under Ss. 279, 304, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec. 134(a)(b) and Sec. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act on a complaint filed by P.S.I., Shirodkar attached to Mardol Police Station. Subsequently, on 18/8/2023, the Inspector General of Police issued orders thereby transferring the said Crime No. 7/2023 to Crime Branch, Ribandar/ Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the Petitioner handed over all the case papers to the Crime Branch. Since then, the Petitioner was not connected with the investigations or the bail matters.

10. Mr. Lawande would submit that Respondent No. 4 in both these Petitions filed Bail Applications on 1/9/2023 wherein the P.I., Crime Branch, Ribandar was made a party. He submits that notice was issued only to the P.I., Crime Branch, who filed a reply and thereafter, Bail Applications were decided vide order dtd. 4/9/2023. While deciding such Bail Applications filed by Respondent No. 4, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made certain comments/remarks against the Petitioner, which are not at all connected with the grant or refusal of the bail and/or without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner.

11. Mr. Lawande would submit that such remarks are first of all unwarranted and are made without any opportunity to the Petitioner. He further submits that such remarks, if allowed to be retained on record, would certainly prejudice and affect the service record as well as the service career of the Petitioner. He submits that such remarks, though unwarranted, would demoralize the Petitioner and other