STATE OF U.PversusSURENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI

A                                 STATEOFU.P.
                                       v.
                            SURENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI

                                   JUNE 21, 2007

B                  [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]


            Judicial restraint:

            Sweeping remarks by High Court-While considering bail application,
C High Court casted serious aspertions on officials and State Government
    although there was no allegation of improper investigation-On appeal,
    Held: Observations which are not necessary for disposal of case should not
    be made-High Court's order shows that general and sweeping observations
    were made without indicating any basis thereof-Directions to delete
D   observations and criticism made by High Court.

          The grievance of State in the present appeal is that the High Court while   ~~
    dealing with bail application of respondent started monitoring the case at
    different points of time and passed impugned order leveling serious criticism
    against t.he State Government and police officials although there was no
E   allegation of improper investigation.

           Disposing of the appeal and directing deletion of observations and
    criticism made by the High Court vis-a-vis the Government and its officials,
    the Court

F         HELD: The observations which are unnecessary for disposal of a case
    should not be made. A bare reading of the High Court's order shows that           r ....-
    general and sweeping observations were made without indicating any basis
    therefor. When there was no allegation by anybody about any lapse in the
    investigation and, in fact, the High Court's judgments does not Indicate
G   infirmity in the investigation, there was no necessity for casting aspersion
    on the bona jides of the police officials and for making serious criticisms.
                                                      IParas 3 and 41 (1122-A-Bl
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 934 of              >- ...,.,
    2002.
H                                        1120
              STATEOFU.P. v.SURENDRA KU MAR SOLANKI (PASAYA T.J.)                1121

            From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2002 of the High Court of            A
      Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc.Bail Application No. 7508 of 200 I.

            T.N. Singh, Sandeep Singh and Anuvrat Shanna for the Appellant.

            K. Sarada Devi (SCLSC) for the Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
      passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while dealing
      with an application for bail filed by the respondent who was named in the
      First Infonnation Report (in short the 'FIR') as an accused alleging commission    C
      of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code,
      1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
      Scheduled Trib~s (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'SCST
      Act'). The prayer was for release of the respondent on bail. Although there
      was no allegation of any improper investigation, the High Court started
      monitoring the case at different points of time and passed various orders.
                                                                                         D
      Ultimately, it passed the impugned order where serious criticism was leveled
--1
      against the State Government and police officials. It was stated that the police
      officials are not doing proper investigation in many cases as they were
      engaged for other unimportant work. It was noted that many times grievance
      was made by senior police officers that the Court is too lenient in granting       E·
      bail to criminals. It was, however, held that the State Government had failed
      to check the crime situation in the State and the State Government was
      warned to take serious action against criminals and to control the crime
      situation expeditiously. It was stated that senior officers in the Government
      of Uttar Pradesh were being repeatedly summoned to cast upon failure to
      comply with the orders of the High Court efficaciously. Direction was given        F
      to recover the missing girl within a stipulated time and to submit periodic
      report.

            2. Grievance of the appellant is that there was no lapse noticed by the
      High Court in the investigation. The general and sweeping observations are         G
      uncalled for and are without any foundation. It is pointed out that the girl
      was traced out. She is married since 2004. Bail was granted to the respondent
      on 22.5.2002. The trial is in progress and the girl's statement has already been
      recorded and for recording further evidence the matter is posted on 30th June,
      2007. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused does not dispute this
      position.                                                                          H
                                                                                      )--

    1122                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   12007) 7 S.C.R.

A         3. This Court has repeatedly held that observations which are really
    unnecessary for disposal of a case should not be made. A bare reading of
    the High Court"s order shows that general and sweeping observations were
    made without indicating any basis therefor. When there was no allegation by
    anybody about any lapse in the investigation and, in fact, the High Court's
B   judgments does not indicate any infinnity in the investigation, there was no
    necessity for casting aspersion on the bona fides of the police officials and
    for making serious criticisms.

           4. This appeal is disposed of directing deletion of the observations and
    criticisms made by the High Court vis a vis the Government and its officials.
C   They were really unnecessary.

    D.G.                                                     Appeal disposed of.