http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  934 of 2002

PETITIONER: State of U.P.

RESPONDENT: Surendra Kumar Solanki

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      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 Information Report (in short the  ’FIR’) as an accused alleging commission 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 Tribes (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 was made by senior police officers that the Court is  too lenient in granting 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 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 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.   

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 any infirmity 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.  They were really  unnecessary.