Judicial officers should not face personal criticism in judicial orders; such remarks can adversely affect their careers and should be addressed through administrative channels instead.

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellant is serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi judicial service. The appellant has preferred these appeals for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 2023 by the Delhi High Court. The appellant moved an application before the Delhi High Court for expunging the remarks in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the first impugned order dated 2nd March 2023. By an order dated 9th May 2023, Signature Not Verified the said application was rejected by the High Court. This Digitally signed by A D 17S a :tH 1e 7I :S :2 3H 0 1 2 K I4 SO .

T1N 1D .2L 2E is the second impugned order.

Reason:

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. The appellant was dealing with an application for anticipatory bail filed by one Vikas Gulati @ Vicky in FIR No.221/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC ’) with Defence Colony Police Station. The appellant had earlier rejected another application for anticipatory bail made by co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala on 2nd January 2023. The anticipatory bail application of Vikas Gulati came up before the appellant on 21st January 2023. By a detailed order, the appellant rejected the said application. While rejecting the application, the appellant made certain adverse observations about the conduct of the police officers and issued certain directions. The following are the observations made by the appellant in the order:

“ Perusal of police file shows that after case diary of 23.12.2022, the next day on which case diary was written by IO is of date 04.01.2023. IO has not written any case diary for date 02.01.2023 on which date, anticipatory bail applications of co- accused Sunita and Raj Bala were dismissed. IO has written in case diary of 04.01.2023 that notices U/sec 41 A Cr. P. C were issued to co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala and all this was apprised to SHO PS Defence Colony.

It is surprising that despite opposing anticipatory bail applications of co- accused Sunita and Raj Bala and submitting before court that their custody is required for recovery of stolen sarees, IO instead of arresting them made them join investigation after serving notices U/sec 41A Cr. P. C. There was no need to oppose anticipatory bail applications of co- accused Sunita and Raj Bala in case, their custody was not required by IO. When police has opposed anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Sunita and Raj Bala before court but made them join investigation by serving notice U/sec 41A Cr. P.C, it appears that there is something fishy on part of police.

…………………………………………………..”

(emphasis added)

After making the above observations, the appellant dealt with the merits of the bail application and concluded that the accused before him was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the appellant observed thus:

“From conduct of IO, it appears that he is not carrying out investigation in a proper manner and there is something more written on wall than visible.”

(emphasis added)

3. The appellant observed that despite so many orders passed by the court, the updated status of cases pending against the accused had not been mentioned in the previous involvement report of the accused filed, along with a reply to the anticipatory bail application.

Thereafter, the appellant issued the following directions:

“ Issue show cause notice to SHO PS Defence Colony and IO HC Raj Kumar U/sec 177 IPC for furnishing false information to this court through DCP, South for 31.01.2023.

Let copy of order be sent to DCP, South to inquire about role of IO as well as SHO PS Defence Colony in investigation of present case in view of observations of this court as have come in this order with direction to file Action Taken Report against the erring officials and file report in this regard before this court on 31.01.2023.

Let explanation be sought from CP, Delhi as t