Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed appeals against an interim order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 07.07.2022, which involved adverse remarks and a direction to the CBI during bail proceedings. The appellants included the State of Karnataka, a senior IPS officer (Appellant No.2), and a District Collector (Appellant No.3), while the respondent was a police officer accused of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court, during the bail application of the respondent under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, made adverse remarks against the appellants on 04.07.2022 and 07.07.2022, and directed the CBI to investigate the past records of Appellant No.2. The appellants sought expungement of these remarks and setting aside of the direction, arguing they were not parties to the bail proceedings and the remarks caused reputational harm. The legal issues centered on whether the adverse remarks were liable to be expunged and whether the direction to the CBI was liable to be set aside. The appellants contended that the remarks were unjustified and violated principles of judicial restraint, while the respondent's bail proceedings were separate. The court analyzed the nature of bail proceedings, emphasizing that they require only a prima facie view and must respect the presumption of innocence. It cited precedents such as Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, and Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar to underscore that judges must exercise caution and avoid disparaging remarks unless necessary for the decision. For Appellant No.2, the court found the remarks unreasonable as he had no involvement in the case or bail proceedings, and no opportunity was given to him. For Appellant No.3, though an accused in the crime, he was not a party to the bail proceedings, making the remarks unfair. Regarding the direction to the CBI, the court held it was issued without giving Appellant No.2 a chance to be heard and without proper procedure, thus liable to be set aside. The court expunged the adverse remarks and set aside the direction, while clarifying that the substantive bail proceedings of the respondent were not being entertained and remained pending in the High Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Proceedings - Adverse Remarks - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - High Court made adverse remarks against appellants during bail proceedings of respondent No.1, who were not parties to the proceedings - Supreme Court held that courts must exercise extreme caution and restraint in passing adverse remarks, especially in bail proceedings where evidence is not fully analyzed and presumption of innocence operates - Remarks were expunged as they were unjustified and caused injury to reputation without necessity for decision (Paras 13-20). B) Criminal Procedure - Bail Proceedings - Directions to Investigate - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - High Court directed CBI to investigate past records of Appellant No.2 during bail proceedings without giving him an opportunity to be heard - Supreme Court set aside the direction as Appellant No.2 had no lis in the bail proceedings and the direction was issued without proper procedure - Held that such directions are liable to be set aside when made against non-parties without hearing (Paras 21-22). C) Judicial Conduct - Adverse Remarks - Judicial Restraint - Not mentioned - Supreme Court reiterated principles from precedents that judges must act with sobriety, moderation, and restraint, avoiding harsh or disparaging remarks unless necessary for decision - Cited Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, and Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar to emphasize caution in remarks - Held that adverse remarks against appellants were unfair and not in interest of justice (Paras 15-20).
Issue of Consideration
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? II. Whether the direction issued by the High Court to seek for reports against the Appellant No.2 during the bail proceedings of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellants and set aside the direction issued to the CBI to investigate the past records of Appellant No.2.
Law Points
- Judicial restraint in passing adverse remarks
- necessity of remarks for decision
- presumption of innocence
- fair opportunity to be heard
- caution in bail proceedings
- expungement of unwarranted remarks
- setting aside directions without lis
