EHSAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manish Tiwary for the applicants, Mr. Sanjay Srivatava for the respondent no. 2 and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) In view of the fact that none of the senior advocates is ready to defend the applicants, therefore, the aforesaid session trial may be transferred to some other district. It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that respondent no. 2 and his father have influence not only on the advocates practicing at Bulundshahr but also on the advocates praciticing at Ghaziabad, Hapur and Khurja courts, therefore, the case may be transferred to some other place.

(3.) The Apex Court, in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2004 4 SCC 158, propounded that fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. Therefore, it is well settled that there should be an atmosphere of judicial calm to hold free and fair trial. In the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, 1979 4 SCC 167, availability of easy legal services was also considered to be one of the grounds for transfer. When the respondent no. 2 and his father are advocates, and the members of the Bar of the Bulandshahr have passed resolution not to appear for and on behalf of the applicants,? it can be easily inferred that the applicants will not be able to defend themselves in the courts at Bulandshahr, consequently, a fair trial is not possible in Bulandshahr. As such the transfer of the trial seems to be just and expedient in the interest of justice.