Back
2011 (5) Supreme 579
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Jahid Shaikh & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. — Respondents
Transfer Petition (Crl) No.55 of 2010
Decided on : 6-7-2011
(1996) 6 SCC 323 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406 – Merely because the facts involved in a case are of a sensitive nature that by itself cannot be a ground for transfer of the trial outside the State. (Para 21)
(c) Criminal Trial – Mere words of an interested party is insufficient to convince the Court about reasonable apprehension of unfair trial. (Para 25)
1958 Crl.L.J. 569 : AIR 1958 SC 309; (1966) 2 SCR 678 : AIR 1966 SC 1418; (1979) 4 SCC 169; (2004) 3 SCC 788 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406 – Mere existence of a surcharged atmosphere without there being proof of inability of the Court of holding a fair and impartial trial, could not be made a ground for transfer of a case. (Para 26)
(2000) 6 SCC 204; (2004) 4 SCC 158 – Relied upon
(2010) 9 SCC 475 – Relied upon impliedly
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406 – Bias is a personal attribute – Whole judiciary cannot be tarred with bias – After framing charge and committing the case to Sessions, bias of the Magistrate framing the charge becomes irrelevant – The Sessions Judge, after elevation has no concern with the case and his bias, if any, also becomes irrelevant – No reasonable apprehension of the trial being not fair not made out. (Para 29)
Facts of the case:
This petition has been filed for transfer of the criminal case launched on the basis of FIRs registered with different Police Stations in connection with serial bomb blasts from Gujarat to some other state.
Finding of the Court:
Reasonable apprehension of unfair trial not made out.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. This Transfer Petition has been filed by one Jahid and 62 other Petitioners under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 pending before the Special Judge, Ahmedabad, for trial outside the State of Gujarat.
2. The aforesaid Sessions Case arises out of FIR Nos.1-236 of 2008 of Shahibaug Police Station and various other FIRs lodged with different Police Stations in the State of Gujarat. Apart from FIR Nos.I-236 of 2008 of Shahibaug Police Station, the aforesaid Sessions Case No.38 of 2009 also involves the following FIRs in which the Petitioners have been implicated :-
(a) I-203 of 2008, I-204 of 2008, I-205 of 2008 and I-206 of 2008 of Maninagar Police Station;
(b) I-338 of 2008 and I-339 of 2008 of Odhav Police Station;
(c) I-400 of 2008 and I-401 of 2008 of Naroda Police Station;
(d) I-321 of 2008 and I-322 of 2008 of Ramol Police Station;
(e) I-190 of 2008 of Isanpur Police Station;
(f) I-218 of 2008 of Vatva Police Station;
(g) I-273 of 2008 of Amraiwadi Police Station;
(h) I-71 of 2008 of Khadia Police Station;
(i) I-220 of 2008 of Bapunagar Police Station;
(j) I-123 of 2008 of Kalupur Police Station;
(k) I-140 of 2008 of Danilimbda Police Station;
(l) I-181 of 2008 of Sarkhej Police Station;
(m) I-200 of 2008 of Kalol Police Station;
(n) 176 of 2008, 175 of 2008, 179 of 2008 and 180 of 2008 of Kapodra Police Station;
(o) 365 of 2008, 363 of 2008, 364 of 2008, 369 of 2008 and 366 of 2008 of Varacha Police Station;
(p) 203 of 2008 and 208 of 2008 of Katargam Police Station;
(q) 651 of 2008 of Umrah Police Station;
(r) 3019 of 2008 of DCB Police Station;
(s) 208 of 2008 and 209 of 2008 of Mahidharpura Police Station.
All the aforesaid FIRs have been lodged in connection with the series of bomb blasts that occurred in 2008 all over the country in major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Bengaluru, killing many and injuring several others. As a response to the aforesaid blasts which were declared to be acts of terrorism by the State Government, a large number of young men belonging to the Muslim community were arrested both from within and outside the State of Gujarat.
3. Appearing in support of the Transfer Petition, learned Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, submitted that the Transfer Petition seeking transfer of the trial of the accused in the Ahmedabad bomb blast cases, as well as in the cases relating to planting of bombs in Surat, out of the State of Gujarat, was necessitated on account of the attitude and conduct of the local authorities. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the local police authorities, jail authorities and the public prosecutor had conducted themselves in a manner which reflects total bias and prejudice against the accused and the same has created more than a reasonable apprehension in their mind that they would not get a fair and free trial in the State of Gujarat.
4. Among the more glaring examples of bias and prejudice pointed out by Mr. Prashant Bhushan was the allegation that charges were framed against the accused without supplying them with the essential documents which were required to be supplied under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly when the majority of the accused were not being represented through counsel.
Mr. Bhushan submitted that in cases instituted upon a police report, Section 207 Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to provide the accused, without delay, free of cost, copies of the police report, the First Information Report recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the statements recorded under Sub-Section (3) of Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the persons whom the prosecution proposed to examine as its witnesses, the confessions and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as any other document or relevant extract forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Mr. Bhushan urged that under Section 227 C
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
