Adverse judicial observations against a non-accused party beyond the scope of remand proceedings are liable to be expunged.

The applicant, Brahmchari Sudhanand, challenged specific adverse observations made against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Haridwar, in an order dated 02.04.2026.

The Investigating Officer (IO) had moved an application before the CJM solely to amend a remand order for three other accused persons.

While deciding that application, the CJM recorded that there was evidence suggesting the applicant was part of a premeditated conspiracy, was present at the scene to assist the accused, and facilitated their escape in his vehicle.

These observations were made despite the IO stating that no credible evidence had been found against the applicant at that stage, resulting in his name being dropped from the list of accused.

The applicant sought the expunction of these remarks, arguing they were outside the scope of the remand proceedings.

Courts must refrain from making adverse observations against a person unless such remarks are necessary for the decision and the person has been heard.

At the stage of investigation, courts should not enter into questions of requisite intention or mental elements before a charge-sheet is filed.

Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat (2019) 13 SCC 598.

Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 30.

The CJM’s jurisdiction was confined to the "limited controversy" of the remand of three specific accused persons.

Since the IO had explicitly reported a lack of incriminating material against the applicant, the applicant was not an "accused" in the context of the application being decided.

The CJM’s detailed findings on conspiracy and the applicant's role in facilitating an escape were "wholly unwarranted" and "beyond the scope of the proceedings".

Such judicial determinations on the merits of a person’s conduct—without the person being a party or the issue being necessary for the decision—prejudices the fairness of the ongoing investigation and creates a premature impression of judicial determination of guilt.

The Court held that these observations shall be treated as non est for all legal purposes.

The IO was directed to conclude the investigation independently and objectively, uninfluenced by the expunged remarks or the High Court's current order.