RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the informant.

(2.) IN this application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is an accused under Section 302. of the Penal Code seeks transfer of Sessions Trial No. 352 of 2006 from the Begusarai District Court to any other Session District on the ground that he is unable to even crossexamine the prosecution witnesses let alone defend himself in the trial in absence of necessary legal assistance of a Counsel. His predicament is that he is an accused for the death of a lawyer who was a regular practitioner in the Begusarai District Court. The local Bar is therefore hostile to him, the atmosphere is vitiated and he apprehends that ultimately justice may be a casualty in so far as he is concerned. He came to this Court initially in Cr. Misc. No. 222 of 2006. On 3.5.2006 the Court called for a report from the District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai who stated that a Counsel had in fact filed power on his behalf. The Court was therefore not satisfied of the plea of inability of defence and therefore rejected the application even while observing that the District and Sessions Judge shall ensure that the petitioner gets assistance of a lawyer in defending his case, in case he is unable to engage any lawyer.

(3.) HOWEVER the local assistance noticed to have been made available to him and which was the reason for rejection of Cr. Misc. No. 222 of 2006 turned out to be elusive when the Counsel representing him was ultimately opposed by his colleagues and a resolution signed by 100 Advocates was passed requesting the lawyer concerned not to defend the petitioner. He came to this court again in Cr. Misc. No. 7986 of 2007 seeking transfer. From the order dated 23.4.2007 passed in the latter application it is noticed that even this Court had to request the assistance of the Chairman of the Bihar State Bar Council, a Senior Advocate, to lend to his good office so that the unsavoury controversy may come to an end. A second resolution of the local Bar dated 28.3.2007 was placed on record that the earlier resolution not to allow his representation by any local Advocate was being recalled. The Court observed that "quite obviously, all this was in the background of the efforts of the Chairman of the Bar Council". Even while apprehensions were still voiced by the petitioner of the hostile attitude of the local Bar, this Court while disposing the application observed that if the occasion arises, the petitioner may have his remedies in accordance with law.