Summary
While hearing a police officer's bail application in a corruption case, a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court orally summoned the Additional Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Bengaluru District Collector, neither a party to those proceedings, made adverse remarks against them in live-streamed hearings and directed the CBI to report on the former's past record. The Supreme Court quashed the interim order: a bail court forms only a prima facie view and must be especially cautious about persons with no lis before it, the remarks were unjustified and an abuse of process, and the direction to the CBI travelled beyond the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether adverse remarks made by a High Court during bail proceedings against persons who are not parties to those proceedings are liable to be expunged.
- Whether a High Court hearing a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can direct the CBI to report on the past record of an officer unconnected with the bail application.
Provisions considered
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The jurisdiction is limited to the grant or refusal of bail; following RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/c, M. Murugesan and Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, directions on matters foreign to the bail application, such as a report on an unconnected officer, are beyond its scope. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Section 7(a), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The FIR against the respondent police officer for demanding a bribe gave rise to the bail proceedings in which the impugned remarks were made. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Held
- Following Niranjan Patnaik, Nandlal Jaiswal and Election Commission v. Vijaybhaskar, judges must act with sobriety and restraint and make disparaging remarks only when necessary to decide the case; at the bail stage, where evidence is unanalysed and the presumption of innocence operates, this caution is heightened, particularly against persons with no lis. The remarks against the Anti-Corruption Bureau officer, who was neither an accused nor connected with the transaction and was given no opportunity to explain, were unfair; those against the Collector, who though an accused was not a party to the bail proceedings and against whom no allegations were made there, were a gross abuse of process likely to prejudice his trial. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The direction to the CBI to place reports against the officer, issued after an oral summons and without hearing him, was manifestly arbitrary; a bail court lacks the material to pass orders on the merits concerning an unconnected party and must confine itself to issues relevant to bail. (¶¶ 21, 25)
- Live streaming of proceedings has brought transparency but imposes a stricter standard of responsibility; remarks in open court now have far-reaching ramifications and must be made only with proper justification, in the right forum and when necessary to meet the ends of justice. (¶¶ 13, 26)
Result
Appeals allowed; adverse remarks against the appellants expunged and the Karnataka High Court's interim order dated 07.07.2022 quashed; High Court requested to conclude the respondent's bail application expeditiously on its own merits, if not already decided, uninfluenced by this judgment.