STATE OF U.P versus SURENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 21-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATEOFU.P. 
v. 
SURENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI 
JUNE 21, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT 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. 
I Paras 3 and 41 (1122-A-Bl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 
>-
...,., 
2002. 
H 
1120 
--1 
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 Y AT, 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. 
Ultimately, it passed the impugned order where serious criticism was leveled 
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 
D 
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 
unnece
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.