The Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case observed and has expunged the disparaging remarks made by the Sessions Court against former Police Commissioner of Gurugram.
The court in the case was deciding the anticipatory bail plea of a junior IPS officer.
The bench headed by Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj in the case observed and has stated that the remarks extracted above were not integral for the final adjudication of the anticipatory bail application moved by the accused–Dheeraj Kumar Setia, IPS.
Further, the court granted no opportunity to the petitioner and also there was no material available on record so as to substantiate and/or justify the recording of the said disparaging remarks.
In the present case, the court was hearing the plea moved by the Police Commissioner of Gurugram Krishan Kumar Rao. Thus, the impugned order cast aspersion on the Commissioner by wondering if the IPS had acted with his concurrence.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before the court that the remarks made against the petitioner were made even though he had no concern with the petition and that there was insufficient material available before the Court below in order to justify the recording of such remarks. He also referred to the case State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that it has bene 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 in order to explain or to defend himself; (b) whether there being any evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks ; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, which being an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct and the same should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
Accordingly, the court granted relief and has agreed to the submissions of the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Jai Vir Yadav, Sr. Advocate with Advocate Rohit Kumar Rana appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Addl. A.G., Vivek Chauhan represented Haryana.