Deletion of adverse remarks against a non-party is necessary to prevent prejudice in criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumbhani, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the BNSS) seeking the modification of an order dated 25.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 18603/2026.

In that previous order, while granting anticipatory bail to one Manoj Bhai, the Court recorded adverse findings in Paragraph 6, effectively grouping the petitioner with the main accused and an intermediary, Rahul Gupta, who allegedly defrauded the Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam.

The petitioner contended he was a victim of the same fraud, was not a party to the bail proceedings, and had already complied with High Court directions to deposit valid bank guarantees.

1. Whether the adverse observations made against a third party (the petitioner) in an anticipatory bail order passed in favor of another accused should be modified or deleted to prevent legal prejudice

2. Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers to correct a factual error regarding the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy mentioned in a previous order

The Court primarily exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice

It applied the principle of natural justice, acknowledging that adverse findings should not be recorded against a party without affording them an opportunity of hearing, especially when such findings could cause grave prejudice in ongoing investigations

The Court reviewed the original order and the documents provided, noting that the petitioner's name had been "wrongly mentioned" alongside the main intermediary, Rahul Gupta, in Paragraph 6

The Court observed that while the respondent (Manoj Bhai) had secured bail by partially misrepresenting the nature of his bank guarantee deposits, the petitioner had demonstrated bona fides by adhering to previous judicial orders from the Jabalpur Bench to furnish valid guarantees.

The Court reasoned that since the fraud appeared to be committed by the intermediary and the petitioner was not a contesting party in the original bail application, the inclusion of his name in the adverse observations of Paragraph 6 was a factual error that necessitated correction to ensure it did not prejudice his legal standing

The Court specifically held that the observations in the original order would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and that the modified Paragraph 6 would henceforth be read in conjunction with the original bail order