The apprehension for transfer of a trial must be reasonable and not imaginary, and the power of transfer is to be sparingly exercised. Fair justice and the independence of the judiciary are essential.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. - This is a petition seeking transfer of case No. CHI/1864/2013, titled as 'CBI v. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and others' in FIR No. 312 dated 10.7.2002, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC read with Section34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and Case No. RC8(S)/2003/SCB/CHD dated 3.12.2003 of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI') from Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Judge') to any other Special CBI Court in the States of Haryana, Punjab or Union Territory, Chandigarh.

2. The petitioner is son of Ranjit Singh, for whose murder the trial is going on. Respondent No. 1 is CBI, respondent No. 2- Mr. K.P. Singh, Public Prosecutor, CBI (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.2') is arrayed by name and respondents No. 3 to 6 are accused in the FIR.

3. On directions of this Court on 10.11.2003, the investigation of FIR No. 312 of 2000, Police Station Sadar Thanesar pertaining to murder of Ranjit Singh was transferred to CBI. After investigation, Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh, Krishan Lal, Inder Sain and Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh were nominated as accused.

4. The petition is filed, as petitioner has an apprehension that the Special Judge is unduly influenced by the accused through respondent No. 2 who is not entrusted with the trial, yet takes interest in the proceedings.

5. Notice of motion was issued on 24.8.2021. Comments of the Special judge were sought. CBI was directed to file a specific affidavit regarding appointment of respondent No. 2 for CBI Court at Panchkula and in meantime final pronouncement of the judgment was stayed.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner

6. Mr. R. S. Bains, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the apprehension of the petitioner of not having fair trial is based upon various instances, some of them are not directly related to the trial in present case. Reliance is placed upon a complaint made against the Special Judge in another case (annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition) to submit that conduct of the Special Judge is not above board. It is argued that Special Judge in his comments filed, has chosen to remain silent on complaint made against him.

7. The submission is that there is unusual proximity of the respondent No. 2 with the Special Judge. The Special Judge was earlier posted at Chandigarh and respondent No. 2 was Public Prosecutor in his court. As soon as the Special Judge was transferred to CBI Court at Panchkula, respondent No. 2 also got transferred to Panchkula. To fortify the contention, it is argued that the respondent No. 2 was there in the office with the Special Judge on 7.8.2021, which was second Saturday court holiday and the fact could have been verified from the CCTV footage. It is argued that the CCTV footage of 14.8.2021 has been stated to be preserved and copy sent with the comments filed by the Special Judge. However, in comments it is stated that the CCTV footage of 7.8.2021 for the camera inside the court room are not available, as back up was only for 15 days. Learned senior counsel submits that the report submitted by the Special Judge is contradictory to the document annexed with the comments as Annexure-9, wherein it has been mentioned that there was an upgradation of server storage and from 17.7.2021 storage capacity is of 21 days.

8. The submission is that the trial was at the arguments stage since 16.9.2017, the Special Judge is now showing undue hurry. The application moved by Special Public Prosecutor seeking two weeks time for getting assistance from a retired investigating officer, was rejected and six days time was fixed for passing the final order.

9. It is argued that interference by respondent No. 2 in court working is evident from the order dated 5.7.2021 passed in the case of Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Associates General Limited and others. Senior counsel objected to presence of respondent No. 2 and requested t