Transfer of a criminal trial cannot be a routinely passed order and substantial grounds, based on sufficient material, need to exist for passing such an order. The court emphasized the need for expeditious trial and fair conduct of proceedings.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for transferring Sessions Cases pending before the court of Judge R.R.Vaishnav, District Judge-1, Sessions Court, Thane to any other Court. The petitioner is the son of Sunil Kumar Lahoriya, who was murdered in front of his office on 16th February, 2013. A First Information Report ("FIR") bearing No.67 of 2013 was registered, pursuant to which investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The accused were arrested after their anticipatory bail applications were rejected and it is an admitted position that the accused persons have continued in custody till date, except a few, who were granted bail recently.

3. On 30th October, 2017, charges were framed before the Sessions Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Sessions Court, various applications were filed on behalf of the accused persons and the writ petitions arising out of the orders passed in such applications came up before this Court. The orders passed by this Court were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there were certain orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. It is relevant that on 18 th December, 2018, in one such proceeding before this Court, an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court directing the proceedings before the trial court to be expedited and to be taken up on day-to-day basis.

4. Thereafter, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court arising out of certain orders passed by the Sessions Court wherein prayers were also made for grant of bail to the accused persons, considering the slow pace at which, the trial was being conducted. Although this Court was not inclined to grant any relief in the said writ petition, considering the fact that this Court had by its earlier order directed day-to-day proceedings before the Sessions Court and it was found that the presiding Judge was overburdened with other work also, by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 9th August, 2019, directed as follows :

"15. In the above facts and circumstance, though we are not inclined to grant any relief claimed in the petition, however, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to transfer the Sessions Case No.281 of 2013 from Shri V.Y.Jadhav, District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane to Shri R.R.Vaishnav, District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane."

5. Accordingly, the trial stood transferred to the court of Judge R.R.Vaishnav at Thane. One of the accused filed Special Leave Petition challenging the said order but, on 17 th December, 2019, the counsel appearing for the said accused made a statement before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition that he did not wish to pursue the petition, but an application for grant of regular bail would be filed before the Sessions Court. On this basis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that if such an application is filed, the Sessions Court shall ensure that the application will be disposed of within a period of four weeks. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner herein i.e. the son of the deceased also challenged the aforesaid order dated 9th August, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the trial was transferred to the court of Judge R. R.Vaishnav at Thane. The said Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. In other words, the aforesaid order dated 9 th August, 2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, transferring the trial to the specifically named Judge, stood confirmed by dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.