JUDGMENT Petitioner Smt. Munni Banoo Khan through this petition, filed under section 482 CrPC, is seeking expunging of the remarks contained in the last two un-numbered paragraphs of the impugned order dated 25.6.96, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Bail Application No. 595/96. Petitioner Smt. Munni Banoo Khan is an Advocate, practicing in the District Court at Satna, and was Additional Public Prosecutor and Additional Government Pleader during the relevant period. Gangaram and Kishorilal, who were arrested by Police Badhera for their alleged involvement in a case registered u/s 307 IPC, at Crime No. 34/96, had filed an application for grant of bail u/s 439 CrPC. The said application, for grant of bail, was pending for hearing in the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Satna. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, heard the application on 25.6.96, and as no case for grant of bail was made out, the same was dismissed vide order dt. 25.6.96. The learned Addl. The said application, for grant of bail, was pending for hearing in the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Satna. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, heard the application on 25.6.96, and as no case for grant of bail was made out, the same was dismissed vide order dt. 25.6.96. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in the same order, passed the following remarks against the petitioner :-- ^^bl ekeys esa] Fkkus dh dsl Mk;jh fnukad 22-6-96 dks lhycan gkyr esa U;k;ky; esa is"k gqbZ] tks lhycan gkyr esa gh lacaf/kr Fkkus dks okil dh xbZ gS] ysfdu vkt ;g dsl Mk;jh Jherh eqUuh [kku] vfr- yksd vfHk;kstd us Fkkus dh lhy [kksydj [kqyh gkyr esa is"k dh gS] tcfd] Jherh eqUuh [kku dks bl ekeys esa vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls iSjoh ugha djuh FkhA vfr- yksd vfHk;kstd] Jh ekyoh; "kklu dh vksj ls vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa iSjoh ds fy, bl U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa] Fkkuk cnsjk ls dsl Mk;jh ykus okys O;fDr us Jherh eqUuh [kku] dks dsl Mk;jh nsdj vkSj vko";drk u gksrs gq, Hkh Jherh eqUuh [kku }kjk lhycan dsl Mk;jh dk [kksyk tkuk muds d`R; ,oa vkpj.k dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA ,slk Árhr gksrk gS fd] mUgksaus Fkkus ls lhycan djds dsl Mk;jh dks U;k;ky; esa is"k djus ds iwoZ vfHk;qDr i{k dks ykHk nsus dh xjt ls Mk;jh dh lhy [kksyh gSA ;g rF; dh lwpuk Fkkuk ÁHkkjh] cnsjk rFkk iqfyl v/kh{kd lruk dks Hksth tkos] vkSj mUgsa funsf"kr fd;k tkos fd] os bl laca/k esa lacaf/kr ds fo:) dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ls bl U;k;ky; dks voxr djkosaA** The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court, in the case of A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, reported in 1990 JLJ 340, contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has unnecessarily passed these above remarks against the petitioner, and the making of the above remarks was not at all necessary for the decision of the said bail application. It was further submitted that the petitioner was never granted an opportunity of explaining the circumstances which were found unusual and objectionable by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The Apex Court, while considering the propriety of making strictures and remarks in A.M. Mathur's case, observed in paras 13 and 14 -- "13. It was further submitted that the petitioner was never granted an opportunity of explaining the circumstances which were found unusual and objectionable by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The Apex Court, while considering the propriety of making strictures and remarks in A.M. Mathur's case, observed in paras 13 and 14 -- "13. Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect; that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the Court as well to other coordinate branches of the State, the Executive and Legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process. 14. The judges Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the Court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the Court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct. (See (i) R. K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan, (1976) 1 SCR 204 = ( AIR 1975 SC 1741 ); (ii) Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar, (1986) 2 SCR 569 at p 576 = AIR 1986 SC 819 at p 824." From the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has drawn heavily on conjectures and surmises in passing the above remarks against the petitioner. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain before the passing of the above remarks. In the opinion of this Court, the above remarks, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge were wholly unwarranted and were not at all necessary for the decision of the bail application. For the foregoing reasons, the petition, filed under section 482 CrPC, deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The remarks against the petitioner, contained in the impugned order dated 25.6.96, and quoted hereinabove in para 3, of the order, are hereby expunged.