2026:UHC:4286 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures 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'