The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petition which challenged the disparaging remarks made against the petitioner in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and ruled that the remarks extracted were not integral to the adjudication of the anticipatory bail filed by the accused and there was no opportunity granted to the petitioner to defend himself.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has challenged the disparaging remarks made against the petitioner in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the anticipatory bail application of an accused. The case had been registered against an accused police officer during the time when the petitioner was posted as Commissioner of the Police.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order records disparaging remarks against the petitioner and his functioning and aforesaid case had been registered against the accused police officer during the time when the petitioner was posted as Commissioner of Police. So, he argued that the disparaging remarks were uncalled for at that stage and that the same were even not necessary for adjudication of the anticipatory bail petition and would have no bearing on the final outcome of the case. He further submitted that remarks/observations or strictures are to be avoided if the officer has no occasion to put forth his reasonings and remarks should be recorded only if it is really necessary for the decision of the case. He further argued that the case did not call out for the recording of disparaging remarks as the work and conduct of the petitioner were not in question, there was no opportunity of explaining or defending himself was given and there was insufficient material available before the Court below in order to justify the recording of such remarks.
Observations of the Court:
The court agreed with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the remarks recorded by the additional session judge. The court observed that the remarks extracted were not integral to the adjudication of the anticipatory bail filed by the accused.
The court further relied on the judgment in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim where it was held that "it has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.”
The court further observed that there was no opportunity granted to the petitioner and there was no material on record so as to substantiate or justify the recording of the disparaging remarks.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Krishan Kumar Rao vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Case No.: CWP-7511-2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Mr. Rohit Kumar Rana
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Chauhan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
