As per case facts, three appeals were filed against an interim High Court order that, during the bail proceedings of a police officer accused of bribery, made adverse remarks and ... directed a CBI investigation against two individuals (a senior IPS officer and a District Collector) who were either unconnected to the bail proceedings or not formal parties to them. These remarks, publicly broadcast, caused significant reputational injury without affording an opportunity to be heard. The question arose whether such adverse remarks and directions, made outside the purview of bail proceedings and without hearing the affected parties, are liable to be expunged or set aside. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's actions were arbitrary, unjust, and beyond its jurisdiction in bail matters. It emphasized that courts must exercise extreme caution, confine remarks to relevant issues, and provide a fair hearing. The adverse remarks were deemed unreasonable and the interim order directing an investigation was quashed, with the appeals allowed.