Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks

“One of the Most Shocking and Disappointing Orders…” – In an extraordinary and candid judicial order, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has released a second bail application from its file after the presiding Judge recorded that adverse observations made by the Supreme Court in a separate matter had a “demoralising and chilling effect” on him.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia declined to hear the matter on merits and directed that it be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for reassignment to another Bench. The Court also requested that the bail roster not be assigned to him in future.

Allahabad High Court passed a reportable order in a second bail application under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The application arose out of Case Crime No. 05 of 2025 registered at Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. The applicant’s first bail plea had already been rejected on 03.11.2025. In terms of the prevailing circular, the second bail application was listed before the same Judge.

However, before entering into the merits, the Court took note of recent developments in an unrelated matter where the Supreme Court had passed strong remarks while setting aside a bail order authored by the same Judge.

Supreme Court’s Adverse Observations in Separate Appeal

The order refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chetram Verma v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19237 of 2025).

In that case, while setting aside a bail order passed by Justice Bhatia in a dowry death matter, the Supreme Court had observed:

“The impugned order is one of the most shocking and disappointing orders that we have come across over a period of time.”

The Supreme Court further remarked:

“We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey… What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death.”

The Apex Court also directed:

“Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad, who in turn shall place this order before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad.”

Judge Records “Demoralising and Chilling Effect”

Taking note of the tenor of the Supreme Court’s observations, Justice Pankaj Bhatia made an unusually forthright judicial statement.

The Court observed that while it is well known that “there is no judge who can claim that his order never has been set aside or interfered,” and though the bail order in question may have been “apparently subject to interference,” the language employed in paragraphs 4 and 29 of the Supreme Court judgment had a profound impact.

The Judge recorded:

“the observations made in the judgment particularly in paras 4 and 29 have had a huge demoralising and chilling effect on me.”

In view of this, the Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to hear the present bail application.

Judicial Propriety and Institutional Discipline

Without adjudicating the bail plea on merits, Justice Bhatia released the matter with a direction that it be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench.

Significantly, the order goes a step further by requesting:

“with a further request to Hon’ble the Chief Justice not to assign Bail Roster to me in future.”

The order reflects a rare instance where a sitting High Court Judge, acknowledging the institutional hierarchy and the impact of superior court remarks, has voluntarily stepped aside from handling bail matters to maintain judicial propriety.

Second Bail Application

The matter before the Court was a second bail application under Section 103(1) BNS and Section 4/25 Arms Act. The first bail plea had already been rejected by the same Court on 03.11.2025.

Under administrative circulars, second bail applications are ordinarily listed before the same Judge who decided the first application. It was in compliance with that circular that the matter was placed before Justice Bhatia.

However, given the intervening Supreme Court judgment and its strong language, the Court deemed it appropriate not to proceed.

The decision underscores three significant institutional aspects:

First, it reflects judicial candour and transparency, with the Judge openly acknowledging the psychological and professional impact of superior court criticism.

Second, it demonstrates adherence to judicial discipline and propriety, ensuring that litigants’ matters are adjudicated without any perceived inhibition or discomfort.

Third, it highlights the broader conversation around the tone of appellate criticism and its potential institutional implications.

Importantly, the bail application itself was neither allowed nor rejected; it was simply released for reassignment.

In an uncommon but deeply reflective order, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has shown that judicial independence also carries with it a sensitivity to institutional dynamics and perceptions of fairness.

By stepping aside and requesting reassignment of the bail roster, the Court sought to preserve both personal judicial integrity and institutional propriety.

The matter will now be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2026