STATE OF U.P. v. SURENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. P. Naolekar
Judgment Date: 2007-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of. The Supreme Court directed deletion of the High Court’s observations and criticisms vis-à-vis the Government and its officials, holding them to be unnecessary and not grounded in the record.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of U.P.

Respondents

Surendra Kumar Solanki

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. N. Singh
• Sandeep Singh
• Anuvrat Shanna

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Sarada Devi (SCLSC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Surendra Kumar Solanki arises from a bail application in a criminal case under IPC sections 363 and 366 and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the bail petition, issued orders that monitored the case at various stages and contained general, sweeping criticisms of the State Government and police officials, asserting alleged lapses in investigation and criticizing the administration’s handling of crime control. The State challenged these observations before the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no allegation of investigative lapses and that the High Court’s remarks were unfounded and not necessary for disposal of the bail petition. The Supreme Court reiterated its well-settled position that observations unnecessary for disposal should not be made and that such remarks, not grounded in the record, should not cast aspersions on the bona fides of police officials. It disposed of the appeal by directing the deletion of the High Court’s observations regarding the Government and its officials, noting that they were unnecessary. The judgment underscores judicial restraint in bail matters, focusing on the substantive issues rather than administrative commentary. The bail in question had been granted on 22 May 2002, with ongoing trial and further evidence to be recorded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 363 IPCSection 366 IPCSection 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial restraint
Observations unnecessary for disposal should not be made
bona fides of police officials

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the Allahabad High Court’s order in the bail matter contained general, sweeping observations against the Government and police officials, despite no allegation of investigative lapses. It asserts there was no infirmity in the investigation; the girl was traced and is married since 2004. Bail was granted on 22 May 2002; trial is ongoing and further evidence is to be recorded on 30 June 2007. The observations appear unfounded and not necessary for disposal; such comments risk undermining cooperation and public confidence, and stray from the record. The State seeks deletion of extraneous remarks and a disposal grounded in the material before the Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel does not dispute the State’s position that there was no concrete lapse in investigation; however, the focus of the High Court’s remarks was on the State’s duty to ensure effective control of crime in the State. The High Court’s observations were argued to reflect concern for administration and police accountability, but the respondent contends that the bail decision should remain undisturbed if the core issues on record are appropriately addressed. The core stance is that the bail petition should be evaluated on evidence and statutory criteria rather than extraneous commentary.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

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 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 _r_ ....- >- 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 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 _--1_ 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 D 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 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 H )-- 1122 12007) 7 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS ## 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.