Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Seemanth Kumar Singh has moved the Karnataka High Court seeking expunction of the remarks made against him by Justice HP Sandesh while hearing a bail petition earlier this week [Seemanth Kumar Singh v State of Karnataka]..Apart from expunction of the remarks made by the judge in open court, Singh has sought quashing of an order passed by the High Court seeking his service records..Singh stated that he was an unrelated party in the plea being heard by the single-judge, and thus the comments made against him were unjustified and unwarranted.“The petitioner has been dutifully discharging his duty and there was no basis whatsoever for the learned Single Judge to make unwarranted comments/observations against the petitioner,” the petition said..He submitted that he was “deeply hurt” by the oral observations, which he claims caused a severe dent to his reputation.“The reputation built by the petitioner dur to years of hard work has suffered a severe dent due to the remarks made by the learned single judge,” it was submitted..It was further contended that a reading of the transcript clearly showed that the judge had passed oral orders and remarks that were not warranted. Singh emphasised that since he had been appointed the ADGP of the ACB, he had been diligently discharging his duties with the utmost honesty..He drew attention to the Justice Sandesh's remarks during a hearing of the case on June 29 calling the ACB a 'collection centre' and Singh a tainted officer, submitting that these were widely published in newspapers, electronic and social media.The judge had traversed beyond the scope of the case, Singh stated in his plea. .The petition was filed through advocate Srinivas Rao SS..On July 4, Justice Sandesh had divulged controversial details regarding threats of a transfer he received for monitoring certain cases being handled by the Bureau. "Your ADGP so powerful (unclear). Some persons spoke to one of our High Court judges. That judge came and sat with me and he said giving an example of transferring of one of the judge to some other district. I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also! He came and sat by the side of me and there is a threat to this court," Justice Sandesh had said.Justice Sandesh was angered by the conduct of the counsel appearing for the ACB, who went back on an undertaking given to the Court during a previous hearing, regarding the production of certain documents relating to the investigation. .It was the judge's belief that this exercise was being carried out to protect those who had engaged in corrupt acts."Are you here to protect the interest of the culprits or the general public? You being an advocate of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The ACB is constituted to prevent corruption," the judge told the lawyer appearing for ACB.He had thus summoned the ADGP to be present in Court on that day. The Court had also directed the Secretary of the State government's Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) to furnish the service records of Singh. This order has been challenged as being without jurisdiction and unsustainable..In fact, on Thursday, the judge again took exception to the Bureau's conduct and found that certain reports furnished by the ACB showed incomplete information. "These are glaring examples of how ACB is working and not furnishing even true report, and giving undertaking but not coming up with report," he remarked.When the ACB's crime statistics were examined by the judge, he found that it was falsely shown that no B-reports were filed in the year 2022."I made it very clear the other day...you are here to defend the ACB. You defend the institution you are representing", said Justice Sandesh on examining the report..The single-judge also went on to note that the ACB was protecting the Deputy Commissioner by submitting to the Court that the accused who collected the alleged bribe was not his employee.However, this statement was found to be contrary to the statement of both Singh and the other accused."AG and you also made a submission the other day that he is not an employee. He is working in the appeal section, name also mentioned. How can a private person work in a Deputy Commissioner’s office? You have hidden the papers of employment also," said the judge.