caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Chander Sharma @ Kaku And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 25 April, 2017Author: S Nazeer
Bench: J. Chelameswar, S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURSIDCITON
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 67 OF 2017
CHANDER SHARMA @ KAKU AND ANR. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
In this transfer petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the petitioners have sought for transfer of criminal proceedings
in case No.33-8/7 of 2016 arising out of FIR No.77 dated 16th June, 2014
P.S. Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, from the Court of
Additional Session Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh to any other Court of
competent jurisdiction outside the State of Himahal Pradesh.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an immense threat
to the life and security of the petitioners in Shimla. The Lawyers
Associations of the entire State of Himachal Pradesh have decided not to
take up petitioners’ case. They have also decided not to permit an outside
counsel to defend the petitioners in the case and that there is a general
agitation in the State of Himachal Pradesh against the petitioners.
Moreover, proceedings sought to be transferred are under local media trial.
Therefore, in all likelihood petitioners will not be able to get free and
fair trial in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
3 The respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the
transfer petition. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
State submits that the court has appointed learned advocates who have more
than ten years standing in the Bar for the accused at the expense of the
State. Charges have already been framed in the case and the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Out of 114 prosecution witnesses, 33
of them have already been examined and that the trial has been fixed on day
to day basis for recording prosecution evidence. On 20th February, 2015,
Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned advocate has filed vakalatnama for accused
Vikrant Bakshi. The accused persons are being defended by the legal aid
counsel, as well as learned advocate appointed by the accused-Vikrant
Bakshi.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State.
5 In the circumstances, we do not find any justification for transfer
of this case. The transfer petition is dismissed accordingly.
…………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
…………………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi;
April 25, 2017.
Comments