VINAY ALIAS ABHISHEK Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the applicants seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 30/2010 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Vinay alias Abhishek and Others) from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Pendra Road, to any other competent Court of Bilaspur. Applicants have also challenged the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in MJC No. 45/2010 dismissing the petition filed by them under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the applicants are accused in Sessions Trial No. 30/2010 in relation to the offence under section 302/34 IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, body of one Ram Chandra Bajaj was found on road in the evening of 26.3.2010, information of which was given to Police Station Marwahi by the brother of the deceased namely Shankarlal Bajaj after receiving the telephonic message and that after completion of investigation the applicants herein have been made accused.

(3.) As per the charge sheet, prosecution has cited as many as 18 witnesses to be examined in support of its case and out of them seven witnesses have already been examined. It appears from the record that during the pendency of trial on 22.10.2010 the applicants had filed an application before the trial Court praying for stay of further proceedings and deferring the examination of the witnesses on the ground that they wanted to move an application before the Sessions Court for transfer of the sessions trial. The said application was however rejected by the learned trial Court on that day itself and thereafter when counsel for the applicants pleaded no instructions and the accused persons had prayed for time to engage some other counsel, trial Court proceeded to record the evidence of the investigating officer and further recorded in the deposition "the cross examination of the said witness 'nil' on behalf of the applicants. Subsequently, on 8.11.2010 the applicants filed an application before the District and Sessions Judge Bilaspur under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transferring the case. While entertaining the said application, learned District and Session's Judge had called comments from the learned trial Judge who in turn gave his comments on 2.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). The main ground which was taken by the applicants in the transfer petition is that the manner in which the trial Court has exercised the power under Section 165 of the Evidence Act and proceeded in the matter gives an apprehension in the mind of the applicants that they may not get justice and may be deprived of fair trial. According to the applicants, the trial Judge appears to be biased and is bent upon to convict the applicants. Further stand of the applicants is that while giving comments on the application filed by the applicants, learned trial Judge has denied all the allegations made by the applicants and it was of the view that it is the applicants who are adopting dilatory tactics in conclusion of the trial and they are not interested to get the trial completed. Learned trial Judge has observed that it has no objection if the trial is transferred to any other Court.