[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1335/2005 ATTAR SINGH PUNIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Date: 22/02/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Dharamveer Tholia for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26.09.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 982/2005 to the extent of adverse remark made against the petitioner and direction to the administrative department to initiate enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Kumar Solanki, (2007) 5 SCC 414 as also the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Rajveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005(2) RCC 552 and in the case of Raghuveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State, 2006(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 284. [2] I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments, it is well settled that before any casting remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could cause serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of proposed remarks or strictures and such an opportunity is the basic requirement. Therefore, in view of the settled preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Kumar Solanki (supra), Rajveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Raghuveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State (supra), the order impugned dated 26.09.2005 so far as passing stricture against the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside with direction that before passing stricture against the petitioner, provide him an opportunity of being heard and then pass fresh order in this regard. [3] With these observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The interim order dated 26.10.2005 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/