The petitioner contended that the following remarks by the High Court against him were objectionable:
– attributing deep rooted bias (on the part of the petitioner-judge) in favour of the prosecution;
– acting in a sheerly partisan bent of mind that by any means, the accused/ appellant Ahshringdaw Warisa had to be convicted;
– virtually predetermined conclusion;
– committing an act of rank judicial impropriety;
– acting in an absolutely slipshod manner;
– acting as a mute spectator without giving a second thought and by total non-application of mind to the actual evidence available on record.
Source: Barandbench
