BRAHMCHARI SUDHANAND vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4286
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528 No.858 of 2026

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.


Mr. Brahmchari Sudhanand, applicant, in
person.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan and Mr. Gaurav
Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

2. This criminal misc. application has been filed
by the applicant challenging the order dated
02.04.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar to the extent observation
made against the applicant in last paragraph at
internal page no.8 of the said order.

3. The applicant, who is present in person,
submits that the Investigating Officer had moved an
application before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar seeking amendment of the
remand order in respect of three accused persons.
While deciding the said application vide order dated
02.04.2026, learned Magistrate made certain
observations against the present applicant in the
last paragraph at internal page no. 8 of the order.
The learned Magistrate observed that, on the basis
of the evidence collected during investigation, it
appeared that the applicant, along with the other
co-accused, had reached the spot pursuant to a
premeditated conspiracy and with a common
intention to execute the alleged offence. It was
further observed that the material collected by the
Investigating Officer prima facie indicated the
applicant's involvement in the conspiracy and his
presence at the place of occurrence in his vehicle to
assist the accused persons. The learned Magistrate
also recorded that there was clear evidence
suggesting that the applicant had facilitated the
escape of the accused persons from the spot in his
vehicle after the alleged incident.

4. The applicant submits that the aforesaid
observations are wholly unwarranted and beyond
the scope of the proceedings before the learned
Magistrate. It is contended that the application
moved by the Investigating Officer pertained only to
the amendment of the remand order of the co-
accused persons. The applicant was neither an
accused in the said application nor was any

2026:UHC:4286
adjudication regarding his culpability required to be
made therein. It is further submitted that the
Investigating Officer, during investigation, did not
find sufficient material to prosecute the applicant
and consequently omitted his name from the array
of accused persons. In such circumstances, the
learned Magistrate ought not to have recorded
categorical findings regarding the applicant's alleged
involvement in the conspiracy or the commission of
the offence while deciding an application relating
solely to the remand of other accused persons. In
order to buttress his argument, applicant has placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs.
Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, reported in 2019 (13) SCC
598. Paragraph no.12 of the said judgment is
extracted below:

“ 12. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite
allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of
the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are
supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim
recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to
the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first
respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the
suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High
Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first
respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the
commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet
to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High
Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was
requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent.”

5. Applicant has also placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan &

another, reported in 2016 (16) SCC 30.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 submits that the order passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is just, proper
and well-reasoned. He contends that in the
application moved by the Investigating Officer
seeking change of remand of the three accused
persons, it was specifically mentioned that no
credible evidence could be collected against the
present applicant and, therefore, his name was
dropped during the course of investigation.
However, upon perusal of the case diary and the
material collected during investigation, the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded a prima facie
finding that the applicant, along with the co-
accused, had reached the place of occurrence
pursuant to a premeditated conspiracy and shared a
common intention to facilitate the commission of the
alleged offence. It is submitted that the material
collected during investigation prima facie indicates
the involvement of the applicant in the conspiracy
and further suggests that he was present at the spot
in his vehicle to assist the principal accused persons.

2026:UHC:4286
It is also contended that there is material to indicate
that the applicant facilitated the escape of the
accused from the scene of occurrence in his vehicle
after the incident. Learned counsel further submits
that the applicant has alleged bias against the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without impleading
him as a party respondent and, therefore, the
present criminal miscellaneous application is not
maintainable. It is also argued that the applicant
seeks expunction of the observations made against
him, which, in effect, would amount to granting him
a clean chit at a stage when the investigation is still
underway and has not yet culminated in a final
report. The judgments relied upon by the applicant,
according to learned counsel, are distinguishable on
facts and are, therefore, inapplicable to the present
case.
7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand,
submits that once the Investigating Officer, after
conducting investigation, had categorically recorded
that no incriminating material had surfaced against
the applicant and, consequently, his name was
dropped from the array of suspects, the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, while dealing with an
application moved solely for correction/change of
remand of the other accused persons, ought not to
have recorded any adverse finding regarding the
complicity of the applicant. It is submitted that such
observations were neither necessary for adjudication
of the application before the Court nor warranted at
a stage when the investigation was admittedly
continuing and had not attained finality.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced
by the parties and perused the material available on
record, this Court finds merit in the contention
raised by the applicant. The impugned observations
were made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
while deciding an application moved by the
Investigating Officer seeking amendment of the
remand order of certain accused persons. The scope
of the said proceedings was confined to the question
of remand of the accused persons concerned and did
not require any adjudication regarding the
complicity of the present applicant, who was not an
accused in the said application. Admittedly, the
Investigating Officer, at that stage, had reported
that no credible incriminating material had surfaced
against the applicant and, consequently, his name
had not been included amongst the accused
persons. In such circumstances, the learned
Magistrate was not required to record categorical
observations indicating the applicant's involvement
in the alleged conspiracy, his participation in the
offence, or his role in facilitating the escape of the

2026:UHC:4286
accused persons. Such findings were beyond what
was necessary for deciding the application before
him and had the potential to prejudice the rights of
the applicant despite there being no occasion for
adjudication of his culpability. The law is well settled
that Courts should refrain from making adverse
observations against a person unless such
observations are necessary for the decision of the
matter and the person concerned has been afforded
an opportunity of hearing. The observations
recorded by the learned Magistrate were neither
essential for the adjudication of the remand-related
application nor germane to the limited controversy
involved therein.
9. This Court is also of the view that permitting
such observations to remain on record may
adversely affect the fairness of the ongoing
investigation and create an impression that the
complicity of the applicant has already been
judicially determined, though no such issue was
directly before the learned Magistrate for
consideration. Accordingly, the observations made
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the last
paragraph at internal page no.8 of the order dated
02.04.2026, insofar as they attribute involvement,
conspiracy or facilitation of the offence to the
present applicant, cannot be sustained in law and
deserve to be expunged in the interest of justice and
fair investigation.
10. In such view of the matter, the criminal misc.
application is allowed and the observations made
against the applicant in the last paragraph at
internal page no.8 of the impugned order dated
02.04.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby expunged and shall
be treated as non est for all legal purposes.

11. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
allegations levelled against the applicant or any
other person connected with the investigation. Since
the investigation is still continuing, the Investigating
Officer shall proceed with and conclude the
investigation strictly in accordance with law,
independently and objectively, uninfluenced either
by the observations contained in the impugned
order or by any observation made in the present
order.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.05.2026

Arpan

ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20ddd
b7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987
446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.05.30 16:56:06 +05'30'