RATAN DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST OF BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE hearing arises out of an application filed by the accused Ratan Das under Section 407, Cr. P. C for transfer of Sessions Case being ST. No. 4 (3)07 under Sections 376, 387, 507, 511,120b, I. P. C. from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Fast Track Court, Baruipur, 24 Parganas (South) to the Court of learned City Sessions Judge, Kolkata for trial.

(2.) THE grounds taken in the initial petition are that on the transfer of earlier P. O. Rabindranath Samanta the Court is lying vacant and Judge-in Charge is taking up the matter reluctantly. The petitioner was resisted in attending the learned Court on several occasions at the instance of the associates and agents of the complainant and the police authorities did not take any step to protect the petitioner. The witnesses and the I. O. and other accused persons will face no trouble to attend the City Sessions Court, Calcutta if the case is transferred there. The petitioner and other accused persons are not getting any lawyer to represent them at Baruipur after Mr. Bijoy Adhikari retired from brief at Baruipur.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 2. 4. 2008 a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner which practically forms the main pillars of the edifice of petition of transfer. In the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the earlier P. O. Mr. Rabindranath Samanta cancelled bail of the petitioner and issued warrant of arrest. The present P. O. has also not granted his prayer for bail after surrender and on 10. 3. 2008 on the date of production of the petitioner before learned Trial Judge Sri Dutta, Sri Dutta announced in the open Court showing his red eyes at the petitioner within the hearing of all present inside the Court room that he would never tolerate accused Advocate Ratan Das (the petitioner) as he is responsible for transferring Mr. Samanta his predecessor-in-office at the remote place at Jhargram under administrative order of High Court. He further announced that whatever submission is made before him the result is Big zero and thereafter rejected the bail petition of the petitioner even without giving him patient hearing and directed the Court Police to send the petitioner to jail when the petitioner was trying to submit in person as no Advocate of Baruipur Court dared to file Vakalatnama on his behalf. These happenings sufficiently indicate how Mr. Rabindranath Samanta the then Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Fast Track Court had created his influence upon his colleague and petitioner reasonably apprehends that if the case is transferred to any other Court other than the Hon'ble Court fair trial may be jeopardised under influence of Rabindranath Samanta.