OF 2023 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl,) No 6572 of 2022) SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH… APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MAHESH PS & ORS.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/procedural-rigidity-and-quashing-of-detention-order/
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.
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. 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. 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 4 CBI against the Appellant No.2. The High Court, on 04.07.2022 and 07.07.2022, on two separate occasions, during the bail proceedings of the Respondent No.1, made adverse remarks against the Appellants herein, which is said to have caused great harm to their reputation. Sashibhusan Kar, this Court, while examining certain remarks made by a High Court stated that the courts, while passing adverse remarks, must be extremely careful and must resort to passing such remarks only if it is necessary to come to fair conclusion in order to meet the ends of justice. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being extracted herein: “In expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint, (…) the judges should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve and harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against the parties or authorities unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as integral part thereof” 16.
Vijaybhaskar, while examining certain adverse remarks made by the High Court, held that judges must exercise extreme caution while passing remarks in court that may susceptible to misinterpretation. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/land-resumption-and-annulment-setting-aside-impugned-orders/
We hope the matter can rest with a sense of balance which we have attempted to bring.”
In light of the aforesaid decisions, as far as the Appellant No.2 is concerned, the remarks made by the High Court against him seem to be unreasonable and without justification.
No specific allegations against Appellant No.3 were made before the High Court, since the bail proceedings, and the submissions of the counsels in furtherance of the said bail proceedings, were only limited to Respondent No.1. After being summoned, the High Court, without allowing the Appellant No.2 a chance to be heard, and without going through the proper 10 procedure, issued a direction to the counsel of CBI to place reports against the Appellant No.2. The relevant observation of this Court is being extracted hereunder: “We are of the opinion that the far-reaching consequences of the directions of the High Court are in a way beyond the scope of an application for bail filed by an accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, as much as anyone else, must stay confined to the issues relevant to the matter before it. The relevant observations made by this court are being reproduced herein: “We find that the learned Single Judge has collated data from the State and made it part of the order after the decision [of the bail application, as if the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in the State.
6 (2011)
14 SCC 770 12 A power cannot exceed its own authority beyond its own creation.”
Case Title: SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH Vs. MAHESH PS (2023 INSC 272)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000872-000872 / 2023
