The Supreme Court Wednesday
refused to transfer criminal cases, related to alleged sacrilege of holy book ‘Shri
Guru Granth Sahibji’ of Sikhs, against some followers of ‘Dera Sacha Sauda’ out
of Punjab, saying the transfer of trials from one state to another would
inevitably reflect on the credibility of the state’s judiciary. A bench of
Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed six transfer petitions filed by Jatinderveer
Arora and others seeking shifting of criminal cases, pending in courts of
Bhatinda, Moga and Faridkot districts of Punjab, to nearby states such as Delhi
or Chandigarh. It was alleged that as the matters relate to alleged sacrilege
of the holy book in different places in Punjab in 2015, there was deep anguish
and bitterness amongst a particular religious group, who form majority in
Punjab and hence the trials against the accused, members of the ‘Dera Sacha
Sauda’ sect, may be be biased.
The top court, while dealing with
the facts of the cases, said, transfer of trial from one state to another would
inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary. Except for
compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the
transfer power should not be invoked. The present bunch of cases are not
perceived to be amongst such exceptional categories. It referred to the
proposition of law in several judgements on transfer of cases from one place to
another and said that the court must be fully satisfied about existence of such
factors which would make it impossible to conduct a fair trial.
General allegation of surcharged
atmosphere is not however sufficient. The apprehension of not getting a fair
and impartial trial cannot be founded on certain grievances or convenience of
the accused but the reasons have to be more compelling than that. No universal
Rules can however be laid down for deciding transfer petitions and each one has
to be decided in the backdrop of that case alone. One must also be mindful of
the fact that when trial is shifted out from one state to another, it would
tantamount to casting aspersions on the court, having lawful jurisdiction to
try the case, the judgement said. It said that the power under the CrPC to
transfer the case must be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases when
fair and impartial trial uninfluenced by external factors, is not at all
possible. If the Courts are able to function uninfluenced by public sentiment,
shifting of trial would not be warranted, it held. It considered the submission
of Punjab government that although petitioners speak of surcharged atmosphere
and threat to their life in Punjab, but, after getting bail, they continue to
reside and conduct their affairs in their respective place without any threat
or hindrance in the state. The top court said the plea of surcharged atmosphere
in Punjab was not borne out by the corresponding reaction of the accused
persons who are out on bail.
Being residents of Punjab, they
continue to reside at their usual place and are going about their routine
affairs. If their threat perceptions were genuine, they could not have gone
about their normal ways. For this reason, the court is inclined to believe that
the atmosphere in the State does not justify shifting of the trial venue to
another state, the judgment said. The apex court noted the assurance of the
Punjab government that it would make all arrangement to ensure safe conduct of
proceedings at the trial courts and also provide adequate security to the
accused and their associates.
____________