The Supreme Court on Monday stayed all proceedings on the summoning of records on the conduct of the Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau ADGP and another IAS officer by Justice H.P. Sandesh of Karnataka High Court, saying they were “detrimental to fair trial”.

But it allowed the judge, who had complained he was threatened with transfer for monitoring the ACB probe, to consider the limited issue of granting bail to the accused.

The bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli refused to expunge the stinging remarks made by the high court judge on the conduct of the ACB and the officers, their service records, and the transfer threat issued to him.

When senior advocates — Mukul Rohatgi appearing for ADGP Seemanth Singh and S. Nagamuthu for another IAS officer, J. Manjunath, against whom the Karnataka judge had made certain observations — sought expunction of the remarks, the CJI bluntly refused.

“Sorry, allegations made by the judge are a different matter. We have to balance the sides and we don’t want to give an impression that we are favouring one side,” Justice Ramana observed.

On July 4, Justice Sandesh had told the ACB counsel “your ADGP is so powerful” and added that a fellow judge had indirectly warned him about a possible transfer. On July 11, he put the matter in writing and said it was “shaking the independence of the judiciary”.

Justice Sandesh said a fellow high court judge — whom he didn’t name — had told him about receiving a call from Delhi and cautioned him about the head of the ACB, a police agency under the state home ministry.

He said this happened on July 1 while he was attending the farewell dinner for Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi.

Aggrieved by his observations, the ACB and the bureaucrats had rushed to the top court seeking a stay on the proceedings and expunction of the judge’s remarks.

The apex court, in a written order, said: “….A bare perusal of the record indicates that the impugned proceedings arise out of a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC filed by the accused, Mahesh PS, in Crime No. 44 of 2022. However, rather than considering the bail application on its merits, the learned Judge has apparently focused on other elements which may not be relevant and are, in our prima facie view, beyond the scope of inquiry in respect of proceedings under Section 439 of the CrPC.

“At the same time, valuable rights of the accused who seeks enlargement on bail under Section 439 CrPC, should not be adversely affected....

“We request the High Court to continue hearing and dispose of the bail application of the said accused, expeditiously, without reference to the pendency of the present Special Leave Petitions before this Court. The impugned order dated 07.07.2022, is stayed.”

All other proceedings are also stayed, the court added.