SC stays Karnataka HC judge's directions while hearing bail plea in bribery case

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 18) stayed the directions given by Karnataka high court judge H P Sandesh seeking the reports filed by the state’s Anti-Corruption Bureau and the service records of officers, including that of the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) while he was hearing a bail application.

A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, said the high court judge, while hearing the bail plea of an accused, had made some “irrelevant observations” beyond the scope of the bail application. The top court, however, refused to expunge the remarks and transfer the case to some other bench in the high court saying that it had to balance the sides.

“The proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, which are not linked with the proceedings with the accused, are stayed. We request the high court to consider the bail application of the accused. List it after three weeks, the bench said.

Besides adverse oral observations, the Justice Sandesh had issued directions such as seeking reports on prosecution/closure of cases probed by the ACB since 2016. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Karnataka government further told the apex court that the judge had summoned confidential service records of the ADGP, while considering the regular bail application of an accused.

Also read: Karnataka HC judge seeks documents on ACB probe; ADGP moves court

The top court was hearing as many as three petitions filed by the Karnataka government – Seemanth Kumar Singh, ADGP of Anti-Corruption Bureau, and jailed officer J Manjunath against the adverse remarks of Justice Sandesh of the high court.

The HC judge had orally called the ACB a “collection centre” and Singh a “tainted officer”.
Justice Sandesh had also claimed to have received a threat of transfer in his order after his adverse remarks and had widened the scope of hearing while considering the bail plea of one Mahesh in the case.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the ACB ADGP, sought expunction of adverse remarks. Another senior lawyer S Nagamuthu, appearing for jailed officer J Manjunath, urged that the matter be assigned to some other bench. But, the CJI said, “Sorry, we have to balance the sides. we cannot be seen to be favouring one side.”

Recently, Manjunath, the then Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner who has been arrested in the bribery case, has moved the top court alleging media trial after Justice Sandesh made “unwarranted remarks” while hearing the bail plea of another accused.
The state government and the ACB chief had earlier filed separate petitions against the high court’s order and observations.

Also read: ‘Threatened’ Karnataka HC judge: ‘Will bell the cat even at cost of my judgeship’

It all started in May, when Justice HP Sandesh was hearing a bail petition by deputy tehsildar Mahesh, who was caught accepting a Rs 5 lakh bribe at the office of the Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner, J Manjunath. Hearing Mahesh’s bail plea, the high court bench of Justice Sandesh had questioned why Manjunath’s name was not included in the FIR following which the court was promised he would be made a party in the case.

On June 29, during the next hearing, Justice Sandesh on noticing the DC was not yet a party, had called the ACB a “centre of corruption” and a “collection centre”, and also hinted that the agency was being headed by a “tainted ADGP”.

On July 4, Singh was again present in the court, during which the judge stated that he was threatened with the transfer after his remark against the ACB that it had become a “collection centre”, and that he was unfazed by such threats.