MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Quashes Adverse Remarks in Bail Proceedings: Protecting Rights and Reputation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court during the bail proceedings of a police officer, emphasizing the importance of caution and fairness in judicial remarks. The bench, comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, held that passing adverse remarks without proper justification can harm the reputation of individuals and prejudice their trials. The court's decision also set aside a direction issued by the High Court to seek reports against an unconnected party, highlighting the need to confine jurisdiction to relevant matters. The judgment, which has far-reaching implications, underscores the court's commitment to protect the rights and reputation of individuals involved in legal proceedings.

"The courts must exercise caution and restraint while passing adverse remarks, particularly when the accused is not a party to the case. Unjustified and unreasonable remarks can cause great harm and prejudice to the accused," stated the bench in its ruling.

The case pertained to three criminal appeals arising from adverse remarks made by the High Court during the bail proceedings of a police officer accused of bribery. The appellants, including a senior IPS officer, sought the expungement of the adverse remarks and challenged the High Court's direction to seek reports against them.

The Supreme Court, citing previous judgments, emphasized that bail proceedings only establish a prima facie view of the case's merits and should not lead to unwarranted adverse remarks. It further highlighted the need to confine the court's jurisdiction to relevant issues and parties.

The bench stated, "A court's jurisdiction should not extend to unrelated matters or parties, particularly when it concerns bail proceedings. Passing remarks and directions outside the scope of the case can have far-reaching consequences and adversely affect individuals' rights."

The court's ruling brings relief to the appellants, expunging the adverse remarks made against them and setting aside the direction to seek reports. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to maintaining fairness, protecting reputations, and upholding the principles of justice.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2023

SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH  vs MAHESH PS & ORS.     

Latest Legal News