Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court recused himself from a bail plea, citing discouraging remarks by the Supreme Court of India and seeking reassignment. He asked Chief Justice to transfer roster, stating fairness, transparency, and trust processes.
PRAYAGRAJ: Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court recused himself from hearing a bail plea, citing that recent observations from the Supreme Court regarding him were discouraging. He also requested the High Court Chief Justice to reassign the bail roster to another judge.
The judge stated,
“The bail application is released to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assigning the same to another Bench with a further request to Hon’ble the Chief Justice not to assign bail roster to me in future,”
The Supreme Court had recently criticized Justice Bhatia, describing a bail order he had issued as “one of the most shocking and disappointing” in recent memory.
In his statement today, Justice Bhatia acknowledged that no judge can assert their orders have never been contested by a higher court, but the remarks against him had imparted a daunting effect.
He remarked,
“Although it is well known that there is no judge who can claim that his order never has been set aside or interfered, and I also feel from the perusal of the judgment that the bail order granting the bail was apparently subject to interference, however, the observations made in the judgment particularly in paras 4 and 29 have had a huge demoralising and chilling effect on me,”
While the bail plea brought before Justice Bhatia today was not related to the case for which he was criticized by the Supreme Court on February 9, he deemed it inappropriate to proceed with the application.
The observations made in the judgment have had a huge demoralising and chilling effect on me.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Bans Rs 500 Photo ID Fee by Bar Associations, Calls It Illegal
Commenting on Justice Bhatia’s decision to grant bail in a dowry death case, a Bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan stated,
“We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey. What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death?”
The case originated from an FIR filed by the father of the deceased, Sushma, aged 22, who had married the accused on March 1, 2025. According to the complaint, a significant dowry was provided during the marriage, including Rs 3.5 lakh in cash. However, the accused and his family allegedly continued to demand a four-wheeler and subjected Sushma to physical and emotional abuse.
On April 25, 2025, the father was informed of his daughter’s death. Upon arriving at the matrimonial home, he noticed marks of injury on her neck and alleged she had been murdered for dowry.
The post-mortem report indicated that her death was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the case was forwarded to the sessions court where charges were established.
In its order to grant bail, the High Court noted the defense’s argument that the hyoid bone was intact and, according to a medical jurisprudence textbook, strangulation was therefore not feasible. The court then stated that since the accused had been incarcerated since April 27, 2025, and had no prior criminal history, he was entitled to bail.
The Supreme Court deemed this reasoning insufficient, nullified the bail order, and instructed the accused to surrender to the trial court immediately.