Demoralised by Supreme Court observations: Allahabad High Court judge seeks roster change

Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court on Friday recused himself from hearing a bail plea, saying that Supreme Court’s recent observations against him were demoralising.

Justice Bhatia also urged the High Court Chief Justice to withdraw the bail roster from him.

"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 judge said.

The top court had recently censured Justice Bhatia and described a bail order passed by him as “one of the most shocking and disappointing” it had seen in recent times.

Today, Justice Bhatia said that while no judge can claim that his order has never been interfered with by a higher court, the observations against him had a chilling effect on him.

"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," the judge said.

Though the bail plea listed today before Justice Bhatia was unrelated to the case in which Supreme Court censured him on February 09, the judge said it would not appropriate to hear the application.

Commenting on Justice's Bhatia order granting bail to an accused in a dowry death case, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan had said,

"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. What did the High Court do? All that the High Court did, was to record the submission of the defense counsel and thereafter proceeded to observe that the accused was in jail since 27.07.2025 and there being no criminal history, he was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail came to be granted."

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. His daughter, Sushma, aged 22, had married the accused on March 1, 2025. According to the complaint, substantial dowry was given at the time of marriage, including ₹3.5 lakh in cash. However, the accused and his family allegedly continued to demand a four-wheeler and subjected the woman to physical and mental harassment.

In the early hours of April 25, 2025, the father was informed that his daughter had died. When he reached the matrimonial home, he noticed injury marks on her neck and alleged that she had been killed for dowry.

The post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The case was committed to the sessions court and charges were framed.

In its order granting bail, the High Court recorded the defence argument that the hyoid bone was intact and that, according to a textbook on medical jurisprudence, strangulation was therefore not possible. It then observed that since the accused was in jail since April 27, 2025 and had no criminal history, he was entitled to be released on bail.

The Supreme Court found this reasoning wholly inadequate and set aside the bail order and directed the accused to immediately surrender before the trial court.