Shambhu Nath Singh @ Deepu Singh vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Shambhu Nath Singh @ Deepu Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 NO. 8264 OF 2022.
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Ashish Kumar Singh, Anuj Pandey.
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Naved Ali, Sandeep Yadav.

Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C. - Section 407 - Transfer of trial - Application for transfer of proceedings due to perceived bias of the Presiding Judge - The applicant requested the transfer of Session Trial No. 357 of 2011 from one district to another citing proximity of the judge to the complainant, raising concerns about fair trial rights. The court emphasized the importance of justice being both done and seen to be done, ultimately deciding to stay proceedings and transfer the trial to a neighboring district. (Paras 11, 10, 8)

(B) Fair trial rights - The right to call defense witnesses is integral to the accused's right to a fair trial - The court remarked that the trial court's rejection of the defense witness application without sufficient consideration represented a significant error justifying the court's intervention. (Paras 6, 7, 5)

Facts of the case:
Application under Section 482 requested transfer of trial from the Additional Sessions Judge's court in Faizabad due to alleged bias. The trial had been pending since 2011. Proceedings had been rejected for the examination of defense witnesses based on presumptions about their relevance.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside, and the trial was ordered to be transferred to District-Ambedkar Nagar. The court mandated that the trial should be conducted expeditiously, without unnecessary delays.

Issues: The key issues included the alleged bias of the presiding judge and the rejection of the application to summon defense witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that any expression of bias undermines the fairness of a trial and asserted the right of the accused to present evidence in their defense.

Result: Petition allowed, and the trial transferred to District-Ambedkar Nagar.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and the parties involved. (Para 1 , 2)
2. reason for transferring the case. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. concerns regarding the trial and fairness. (Para 4 , 7 , 9 , 10)
4. legal reasoning behind the judgment. (Para 8 , 12)
5. conclusion and orders directed by the court. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Naved Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. A detailed order has been passed today i.e. 20.01.2023 in the connected application bearing TRANSFER APPLICATION (Criminal) No.124 of 2022 filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

"Heard Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Naved Ali, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.2, the same is taken on record.

By means of this application filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed to transfer the Session Trial No.357 of 2011 (State v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.555 of 2010, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act relating to Police Station-Maharajganj, District-Faizabad from the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court-III, M.P./ M.L.A., Faizabad to the Sessions Court of any district designated for M.P./M.L.A. cases in the interest of justice. The applicant has further prayed that till disposal of this application, the aforesaid may be stayed.

It appears that after hearing at substantial length, this Court has passed a detailed order on 21.12.2022, which reads as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Jyotindra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by the counsels appearing for the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned additional government advocate.

2. Notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned additional government advocate.

3. Issue notice to opposite Party number 2.

4. Steps by tomorrow for service of notice.

5. The present application under section 407 CrPC has been filed for transferring the proceedings of Session Trial No. 357 of 2011, State v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others, arising out of case Crime number 555 of 2010, under sections 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, P.S. Maharajganj District Faizabad, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-IIIrd/MPMLA Court, Faizabad to any other special court of MPMLA in any other district.

6. The ground taken for transferring the said proceedings to any other Court is keenness of the learned Presiding Judge to proceed with the case despite interim order passed by this court in an application under section 482 CrPC bearing No. 8264 of 2022. The order dated 17th November 2022 passed in the said application would read as under:

"1. Notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by learned A.G.A. whereas notice on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been accepted by Mr.Naved Ali, Advocate.

2. Learned A.G.A. and Mr.Naved Ali, Advocate seek and are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in S.T. No.357 of 2011 Case Crime No.555 of 2010 under Sections 147, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Ayodhya. After prosecution witness got examined, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 3.11.2022. The petitioner moved an application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. to examine defence witnesses. As many as 11 defence witnesses have been cited in the application.

4. Learned trial court has rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 11.11.2022 on the ground that all the witnesses who have been cited to be examined as defence witness i