NARAYAN, J. - (1.) BY this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicant had desired several reliefs in the matter of cancellation of bail of the accused opposite party. The reliefs other than the one desiring expunction of certain remarks in the order dated 19.8.1987 cannot be entertained now as the question of cancellation of bail etc. will be immaterial after a lapse of about seven years. In fact the application has been pressed more for relief of expunction of the remarks, may be from the very beginning as is evident from the order dated 27.8.1987 of the Court.
(2.) THE challenge remark "here I feel it important to mention that when the goods were pledged, it was the obligation of the Bank authorities itself, on the principle of cavet empter enumerated in the contract that they should in order to safeguard their own interest be very much vigilant to have custody of the goods of the real nature and not allow the party to defraud what the authorities of the Bank or its officers or technical officers did."
(3.) IT has been urged on behalf of the applicant that the remark was not only uncalled for but was very much prejudicial for the purposes of the trial. Disposing of the bail application is a matter different from deciding the case. The judge should have known the limitations while recording an interim order or bail order of final judgment. The mind of the judge should not be opened so easily and more so when such observations are likely to effect the future decision of the Court, may it be presided by the same Jude or by other. Of course judges have been given authority to write anything they feel for the purpose of judicial decision but at the same time the judicial restraint is also there. Neither party should be given an impression, that justice is now going to take a particular shape. The limitations are not for putting restraint upon the expression but are for restricting the judges from saying more than what is actually necessary.;