Justice Sandesh had asked why Mr. Manjunath, the then Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner, was not made an accused in the bribery case.
New Delhi: In a relief for senior Karnataka cop Seemanth Kumar Singh and bureaucrat J Manjunath, the Supreme Court today stayed observations made by Karnataka High Court calling the former a “tainted officer” and the Karnataka Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) a “collection centre”.
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, while directing the High Court to decide on the bail matter afresh, told that those observations were unconnected to the case, and not within the ambit of the proceedings.
The CJI said “Conduct of the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) officer is unconnected to the case that was being heard. Rather than considering the bail application, the judge focused on other things which may not be relevant and beyond the scope.”
“Conduct of the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) officer is unconnected to the case that was being heard. Rather than considering the bail application, the judge focused on other things which may not be relevant and beyond the scope,” he added.
Karnataka Additional Director General of Police Seemanth Kumar Singh and Indian Administrative Services officer J Manjunath had moved the apex court seeking expunction of “adverse” remarks of Karnata High Court judge HP Sandesh which were made during the hearing of a bribery case. They also sought a stay on the proceedings.
Justice Sandesh had asked why Mr. Manjunath, the then Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner, was not made an accused in the bribery case.
IAS officer J Manjunath, who is currently in jail in the bribery case, said that some of the observations were made against him without giving him an opportunity to represent himself.
The bail plea read “The High Court has lost sight of the fact that such remarks at nascent stages of investigation have a disastrous bearing on the fair probe and judicious conclusion of the criminal proceedings, including his right to remedy of bail,” and added that he has been subjected to media trial due to these remarks.
The judge later claimed to have received a threat of transfer after his remarks.
Mr Ramanna said”Allegations made by the judge are a different matter and we don’t want to give an impression that we are favoring one side.”
The matter is to be heard next after three weeks.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
