JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Lawande appearing along with Mr. Pradosh Dangui and Ms. Joglekar for the Petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pravin Faldessai appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Deshprabhu for Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 750 of 2023 (F) and Mr. Siddharth Sardesai for Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 751 of 2023 (F). 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Both these Petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as the issue involved in both these Petitions is limited to the observations made by the learned Trial Court qua the Petitioner in both the Bail Applications. 3. Both these Petitions are filed challenging the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda while deciding the Bail Applications. 4. The Petitioner herein is a Police Officer and at the relevant time, he was posted at Mardol Police Station. Crime No. 7/2023 was registered on 6/8/2023 in connection with a motor vehicular accident at Banastarim Bridge wherein some persons were injured and even three persons died on the spot. 5. The challenge in these Petitions is only with regard to the observations of the learned Trial Court qua the Petitioner who was incharge of Mardol Police Station at the relevant time. 6. These observations are found only in one paragraph of the orders passed in the Bail Applications filed by the Accused persons namely, Mr. Ganesh Lamani and Mr. Amit Palekar. 7. Mr. Lawande appearing for the Petitioner would submit that first of all, the Petitioner was not a party to both the Bail Applications filed before the learned Trial Court by Respondent No. 4. It is submitted that before making such observations, the Petitioner was not called upon or given any notice. 8. Mr. Lawande would submit that initially, while the Petitioner was incharge of Mardol Police Station, in fact, he registered the FIR against the driver as well as the owner of the said car and then started the investigations. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Crime Branch, which took over the investigation from the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner was not connected with the investigations or even the filing of the Bail Applications. 9. Mr. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Crime Branch, which took over the investigation from the Petitioner. Since then, the Petitioner was not connected with the investigations or even the filing of the Bail Applications. 9. Mr. Lawande would then submit that the incident took place on 6/8/2023 and immediately, FIR was lodged by the Petitioner at 3:30 a.m. on 7/8/2023 vide Crime No. 7/2023 under Ss. 279, 304, 337, 338 of IPC, Sec. 134(a)(b) and Sec. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act on a complaint filed by P.S.I., Shirodkar attached to Mardol Police Station. Subsequently, on 18/8/2023, the Inspector General of Police issued orders thereby transferring the said Crime No. 7/2023 to Crime Branch, Ribandar/ Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the Petitioner handed over all the case papers to the Crime Branch. Since then, the Petitioner was not connected with the investigations or the bail matters. 10. Mr. Lawande would submit that Respondent No. 4 in both these Petitions filed Bail Applications on 1/9/2023 wherein the P.I., Crime Branch, Ribandar was made a party. He submits that notice was issued only to the P.I., Crime Branch, who filed a reply and thereafter, Bail Applications were decided vide order dtd. 4/9/2023. While deciding such Bail Applications filed by Respondent No. 4, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made certain comments/remarks against the Petitioner, which are not at all connected with the grant or refusal of the bail and/or without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner. 11. Mr. Lawande would submit that such remarks are first of all unwarranted and are made without any opportunity to the Petitioner. He further submits that such remarks, if allowed to be retained on record, would certainly prejudice and affect the service record as well as the service career of the Petitioner. He submits that such remarks, though unwarranted, would demoralize the Petitioner and other Officers of the Police Department. According to Mr. Lawande, there was absolutely no need to pass such remarks/observations while deciding the Bail Applications. The only prayer in the Petitions, according to Mr. Lawande is to expunge the remarks found in one paragraph of the Bail orders. 12. Reply is filed by Respondent No. 3 wherein it has been stated that in fact, the record available at the Police Station shows that the Petitioner immediately registered the offence and conducted the investigations. The only prayer in the Petitions, according to Mr. Lawande is to expunge the remarks found in one paragraph of the Bail orders. 12. Reply is filed by Respondent No. 3 wherein it has been stated that in fact, the record available at the Police Station shows that the Petitioner immediately registered the offence and conducted the investigations. The offence was registered against the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle, who is considered to be the actual offender. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 would submit that the grant or refusal of bail is totally a different aspect and that the said Respondent has nothing to do with the comments or the observations of the Trial Court. 14. Rival contentions now fall for my determination. 15. Respondent No. 4 in both these Petitions filed Bail Applications in Crime No. 7/2023. Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 750 of 2023 (F) filed his Bail Application on 1/9/2023, which was registered as Bail Application No. 165/2023 while Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 751 of 2023 (F) filed his Bail Application on 31/8/2023, which was registered as Bail Application No. 159/2023. Both these Applications were decided on the same date i.e. on 4/9/2023. 16. In Bail Application No. 165/2023, the observations against the Petitioner are found in paragraph 52 of the order dtd. 4/9/2023 and in Bail Application No. 159/2023, similar observations are found in paragraph 54 of the order dtd. 4/9/2023. In fact, both these paragraphs are identical. 17. Admittedly, when the Bail Applications were filed, the investigation was already transferred to the Crime Branch. The order to transfer the investigation to the Crime Branch was issued by the Inspector General of Police on 17/8/2023. Thus, only the P.I. of the Crime Branch or the I.O. attached to the Crime Branch was supposed to file a reply to the Bail Applications. The impugned orders also show that notice was issued to the I.O. of the Crime Branch with directions to submit his say. Accordingly, the Officer of the Crime Branch along with the Special Public Prosecutor appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and filed the say. It further shows that such say was filed on 1/9/2023 by the Crime Branch. 18. Accordingly, the Officer of the Crime Branch along with the Special Public Prosecutor appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and filed the say. It further shows that such say was filed on 1/9/2023 by the Crime Branch. 18. Both the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that neither the Petitioner nor any Officer from the Mardol Police Station was called upon to file any say on the Bail Applications. Thus, it is apparent from the face of the record that though the P.I. of Mardol Police Station/Respondent No. 3 was made a party to both the Bail Applications, said P.I. of Mardol Police Station was not called upon to file say. Even otherwise, since the investigation was already transferred to the Crime Branch, there was no question of calling the P.I. of Mardol Police Station to appear and file his say. 19. A perusal of the observations in paragraph 52/54 respectively would clearly go to show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge cast aspersion on the functioning of the Petitioner being the incharge of Mardol Police Station at the relevant time, which, are apparently unwarranted for the purpose of deciding the Bail Applications. 20. Mr. Lawande placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 and more specifically, on paragraph no. 11, which reads thus: "The last question is, is the present case a case of an exceptional nature in which the learned judge should have exercised his inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 561-A Cr.P.C. in respect of the observations complained of by the State Government ? If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by this Court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fairplay and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fairplay and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 21. In the above matter, the Apex Court (Bench of Hon'ble four Judges) was considering the provisions of Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (old), which is pari materia to Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (new). 22. The Apex Court observed that it has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against the person or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law in cases to be decided by them and certain parameters will have to be considered as a judicial discipline. 23. Mr. Lawande would then submit that parameters referred to by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Naim (supra) were further considered in the case of Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Another Vs. State of Assam & Another, (1996) 6 SCC 234 . In paragraphs 6 and 7, the Apex Court observed thus: "6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly laid down by this Court in State in Uttar Pradesh vs. Moh. Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 . The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly laid down by this Court in State in Uttar Pradesh vs. Moh. Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 . Those tests are: (a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied by this Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram vs. Hans Raj Midha, AIR 1972 SC 1140 , R.K. Lakshmanan vs. A.K. Srinivasan AIR 1975 SC 1741 and Niranjan Patnaik vs. Sashibhusan Kar and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 819 . 7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice." 24. Mr. Lawande would then submit that the principles set out in Mohammad Naim (supra) were further considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Another Vs. M/s Shikha Trading Company, 2023 SCC Online SC 1076 in a recent decision dtd. 25/8/2023 while deciding Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2011 (online SCC). 25. In M/s Shikha Trading Company (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with some directions passed by the High Court affording the opportunity to the concerned Officer to explain relevant facts and circumstances. Such directions were made only on assertions made by one of the parties without any evidence to substantiate the same. 25. In M/s Shikha Trading Company (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with some directions passed by the High Court affording the opportunity to the concerned Officer to explain relevant facts and circumstances. Such directions were made only on assertions made by one of the parties without any evidence to substantiate the same. In this context, it was observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 with regard to passing remarks/ comments against a person, whose conduct has been scrutinised. It was observed by Apex Court that the High Court has failed to take into account the settled principles of law as laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra). The parties whose conduct was in question were not before the Court and no opportunity of explaining or defending was given. Similarly, there was no evidence on record to justify such remarks. Similarly, there was no necessity to pass such remarks for deciding the case. 26. The Apex Court further observed in paragraphs 18 and 19 as under: "18. The three principles laid down in Mohammad Naim (supra) deal with what is required of the court, prior to, finding it fit to pass adverse remarks. 18.1 It has been reasserted time and again that remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand. 18.2 Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint. Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve. 18.3 It should not be lost sight of and per contra, always be remembered that such remarks, "due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges"; and may "deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty". It further flows therefrom that "adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly". 19. It further flows therefrom that "adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly". 19. Keeping the above principles in mind, the power to expunge remarks may be exercised by the High Court and this Court:"" 19.1 With great caution and circumspection, since it is an undefined power; 19.2 Only to remedy a flagrant abuse of power which has been made by passing comments that are likely to cause harm or prejudice; 19.3 In respect of High Courts exercising such power, it has been observed: 19.3.1 The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it. 19.3.2 Though in the context of Judicial officers, this Court has observed that "The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly. "Pardon the error but not its repetition". This principle would apply equally for all services. The power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher's cane." 27. The principles as laid down by Apex Court as above are squarely applicable to the matter in hand. The Petitioner is one of the Officers of the Police Department and therefore, any remarks passed against him about his conduct, without he being heard in the matter would certainly affect his morale as well as prejudice his service career. 28. Besides this, such remarks were not required as it is not an integral part of the decision making of the Trial Court and that too for the grant or refusal of bail to Respondent No. 4. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not incharge of or the I.O. of the case from the date when the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. Thus, it is quite apparent that no notice was issued to the Petitioner though he was made party to the Bail Applications. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not incharge of or the I.O. of the case from the date when the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. Thus, it is quite apparent that no notice was issued to the Petitioner though he was made party to the Bail Applications. The Petitioner was not called upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to explain before making such remarks while deciding the Bail Applications. The observations appearing in paragraphs 52/54 as the case may be are not necessarily required for the purpose of deciding the Bail Applications. What was necessary to consider the Bail Applications is the fact that as to whether the Applicants/Accused are entitled to bail and whether they will be available during trial. In such circumstances, the contentions of the Petitioner needs to be accepted. Admittedly, such observations cast a serious aspersion on the Petitioner's character, reputation as well as his career as a Police Officer and that too without calling up him to explain. 29. The offence against Respondent No. 4 in both these Applications was mostly under Ss. 201, 203, 212 and 120-B together with Ss. 279, 304, 337 and 338 of IPC. It is the contention that Respondent No. 4 [in Criminal Writ Petition No. 750 of 2023 (F)], claiming to be the driver of the car along with Respondent No. 4 [in Criminal Writ Petition No. 751 of 2023 (F)] being the Advocate of the owner of the car, approached the Petitioner at Kundaim Industrial Estate junction wherein Respondent No. 4, Mr. Ganesh Lamani informed the Petitioner that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident whereas the owner was sitting next to him. It is the contention that Respondent No. 4, Mr. Amit Palekar, the Advocate, was convincing the Petitioner that the driver Ganesh Lamani was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is further alleged that the Petitioner called the owner of the car along with the driver, Ganesh Lamani to Mardol Police Station and forwarded both of them to the hospital for medical examination as well as alcohol test. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 4, Amit Palekar along with the owner of the car and driver, Ganesh Lamani conspired to plant said Ganesh Lamani as driver/impostor. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 4, Amit Palekar along with the owner of the car and driver, Ganesh Lamani conspired to plant said Ganesh Lamani as driver/impostor. In furtherance of such conspiracy, Respondent No. 4/Amit Palekar called the Petitioner on his mobile phone and informed him that the driver, Ganesh Lamani wanted to surrender. Accordingly, said Ganesh Lamani was brought to the Police Station by the owner of the vehicle along with Respondent No. 4, Amit Palekar. In such a scenario additional offences under Sec. 201, 203, 212, 120-B of IPC were added to Crime No. 7/2023 30. The say filed by Respondent No. 3 revealed that the Petitioner stationed at Mardol Police Station conducted a detailed inquiry into the vehicular accident though some media reports were projecting that the vehicle was driven by a lady and one Ganesh Lamani claimed that he was driving the car at the time of the accident. However, the Petitioner forwarded Ganesh Lamani and Paresh Sawardekar, who was allegedly driving the vehicle for medical examination and registered an offence against Paresh Sawardekar. 31. Be that as it may, the fact remains that before making some aspersion on the conduct of the Petitioner as found in the impugned paragraphs, Petitioner was not called for to explain. Apart from that, such observations are not necessary for deciding the Bail Applications and therefore, it has to be considered as unwarranted. 32. Applying the ratio laid down in the case of M/s Shikha Trading Company (supra) and Mohammad Naim (supra), the Petitioner is entitled for expunging such remarks made in the impugned orders. While exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C, as observed in the case of Mohammad Naim (supra), this Court has powers to do so in such a situation. Accordingly, both the Petitions succeed. 33. Criminal Writ Petition No. 750 of 2023 (F) stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus: "a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of certiorari, or any other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other Writ, Order or direction thereby calling for records of order dtd. 04/09/2023 in Bail Application No. 165/2023, Mr. Ganesh Lamani V/s State of Goa and Ors. and thereby quash and set aside para 52 of the order dtd. 04/09/2023 in Bail Application No. 165/2023, Mr. 04/09/2023 in Bail Application No. 165/2023, Mr. Ganesh Lamani V/s State of Goa and Ors. and thereby quash and set aside para 52 of the order dtd. 04/09/2023 in Bail Application No. 165/2023, Mr. Ganesh Lamani V/s State of Goa and Ors." 34. Similarly, Criminal Writ Petition No. 751 of 2023 (F) stands allowed as far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, which reads thus: "a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of certiorari, or any other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other Writ, Order or direction thereby calling for records of order dtd. 04/09/2023 in Bail Application No. 159/2023, Mr. Amit Palekar V/s State of Goa and Ors. and thereby quash and set aside para 54 of the order dtd. 04/09/2023 in Bail Application No. 159/2023, Mr. Amit Palekar V/s State of Goa and Ors." 35. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 36. Both the Petitions stand disposed of.