JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The limited issue involved in these appeals is about the observations made against the Investigating Officer [appellant in SLP(Crl.) D. No. 39194 of 2018] by the High Court while rejecting the bail application filed by the accused in connection with FIR No. 28 of 2016. 4. From the impugned judgment itself, it is amply clear that the Investigating Officer was required to appear in person in Court due to lawyers’ strike on that day. He was not fully equipped to assist the Court as he was not the Investigating Officer at the relevant time. He wanted to take assistance from the case diary but even that request was not appreciated by the Court. In this background, he gave vague answers to the string of questions posed by the Court which conduct did not find favour with the Court. Resultantly, certain observations have been made in the impugned judgment against him personally. The Court also directed the Department to take appropriate action against the official. 5. After considering the entire matter in right perspective and keeping in mind the exposition of this Court in A. M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 533 , and State of U. P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964) 2 SCR 363 , on which reliance has been justly placed by the appellant(s), we have no hesitation in holding that the observations made by the High Court against the official, who had appeared before the Court, were unwarranted and to say the least, sweeping generalization de hors the factual situation to be dealt with by the Court. As a result, the observations made against the police official (Praveen Asthana) in the impugned judgment and also the directions given to the Department to proceed against him are directed to be expunged in terms of this order. 6. The appeals are allowed to this limited extent, without disturbing the final order of rejecting the bail application filed by the accused. Ordered accordingly. 7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.