AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHA vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 409 OF 2021

JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. 1. This transfer petition has been preferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’), read with Article 139A of the Constitution of India and Order 39 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Petitioner herein is the brother of one Kurban Sha (hereinafter, ‘Deceased’) and he seeks transfer of the criminal trial S.T. No. 1 (03) of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 495 of 2019 registered at rd PS Panskura, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 3 Court,   Tamluk,   Purba   Medinipur,   West   Bengal   (hereinafter,   ‘Trial Court’), to a competent court in the State of Assam, primarily on the ground that a fair trial will not be possible in the State of West Bengal. A.  FACTS Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2023.03.17 15:00:27 IST Reason: Page | 1  2. The factual matrix is succinctly discussed below before delving into the aforesaid issue that arises for our consideration: ­ On the date of incident, i.e., 07.10.2019, the Deceased is alleged 3. to have been shot in the neck by ‘certain unknown musclemen & goons’ when he was working in the office of a political party. The Deceased was immediately rushed to a hospital but was declared dead on arrival.  On the next day, the subject FIR was lodged under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and, under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959   against   Respondent   No.   2   at   the   behest   of   one   Jahar   Sha (hereinafter,   ‘De­facto   Complainant’),   who   is   stated   to   be   the Deceased’s nephew and an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. 4. After   investigation,   the   police   authorities   concluded   that Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 were also involved in the offence, along with Respondent No.  2.  A  chargesheet   was  submitted  against   the  said individuals along with a list of 107 witnesses, including the De­facto Complainant and the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that during the   investigation,   the   police   is   also   said   to   have   recovered   some incriminating material such as fire arms, ammunition and certain documents.  5. Accordingly, charges were framed against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and Respondent No. 11 by the Trial Court under Sections 302 read Page | 2  with 120B of IPC and, under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. Respondent Nos. 9 & 10 had previously been declared as proclaimed offenders.   The   trial   commenced   in   September,   2020.   The   main accused, i.e., Respondent No. 2, continues in custody as his repeated bail applications have been dismissed by the Trial Court as well as by the Calcutta High Court. During the pendency of the trial, the Legal Remembrancer & Ex­ 6. Officio   Secretary   to   the   Government   of   West   Bengal,   Judicial Department, by an order of the Governor, issued a notification dated 26.02.2021 directing the Public Prosecutor to apply under Section 321   of   CrPC   and   withdraw   the   criminal   proceedings   against Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, subject to the consent of the learned Trial Court. This notification was challenged by the De­facto Complainant before the Calcutta High Court.  Soon   thereafter,   on   01.03.2021,   a   newly   appointed   Public 7. Prosecutor   moved   an   application   before   the   learned   Trial   Court praying for withdrawal of the prosecution case stating that it was marred  with   political  and   personal  vendetta.   This  application   was taken up for hearing on the very next day by a Link Judge who was presiding over the Trial Court, despite the fact that the case was listed for recording evidence on 10.03.2021. The Link Judge was reportedly informed   about   the   pending   challenge   to   the   notification   dated Page | 3  26.02.2021 at the Calcutta High Court, but regardless thereto, he proceeded  to  hear   the  application   and   allowed  the   Prosecution  to withdraw the case. As a result, Respondent Nos. 2­11 were acquitted.  Meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the De­facto Complainant 8. was taken up for hearing on the afternoon of the same day when the Trial   Court   had   allowed   the   Public   Prosecutor   to   withdraw   the criminal case. A learned Single Judge of the High Court noted as follows: “Surprisingly,   in   the   instant   case,   a   specific notification   was   issued   on   February   26,   2021, apparently   communicating   a   direction   of   the Governor to instruct the concerned Public Prosecutor to   withdraw   the   case–in­question   subject   to   the consent of the Sessions Court. However, not an iota of   reason   and/or   how   such   withdrawal   would advance the cause of justice and public interest has been  indicated  in  the said  order.  That apart,  the modus   operandi   in   the   present   case   is   rather transparent   since   the   Public   Prosecutor   actually acted on such instruction and made an application pursuant to the order of the State Government and, despite   having   knowledge   of   this   Court   being   in seisin   of   the   present   writ   petition,   the   concerned Sessions   Judge   has   granted   consent   for   such withdrawal, which has the effect of acquitting the accused persons. It is evident from the stand of the State taken on   all  previous   occasions   when   bail   was   rejected, that the State vehemently opposed even the grant of bail to the accused. Hence, it defies logic completely as to what prompted the Government to instruct the Public Prosecutor­in­ question to withdraw the case against the accused persons all of a sudden. Despite   the   self­imposed   restraint   which   this court   imposes   upon   itself   in   the   exercise   of Page | 4  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such restraint cannot be a fetter to the court exercising such jurisdiction for the ends of justice where   manifest   abuse   of   the   process   of   law   has taken place. If the writ court shuts its eyes to the perpetration   of   mala   fide   and   arbitrary administrative   action,   it   would   be   failing   in   its incumbent duty of judicial review conferred by the Constitution of India.  In the present case, in view of the arbitrary and unreasoned nature of the instructions of the State to the   Public   Prosecutor   dated   February   26,   2021, pursuant to which the Public Prosecutor acted and even   the   Sessions   Court   granted   consent   to   such withdrawal,   the   said   instruction   as   well   as   the effects thereof have to be set aside.” The High Court observed that none of the parameters to invoke 9. jurisdiction under Section 321 of CrPC were applied either by the Public Prosecutor or by the State and resultantly, it was held that the exercise was bad in law and that the   mala fides   of the State was evident from its contradictory stand wherein it previously opposed the bail applications but now was seeking to withdraw the prosecution itself. Accordingly, the High Court directed that any action taken in the meantime, pursuant to the State Government’s notification dated 26.02.2021, including the order allowing withdrawal of the case was liable to be set aside. It ordered accordingly. The   De­facto   Complainant   thereafter   submitted   an   affidavit 10. before the Trial Court expressing his ‘no­objection’ to the grant of bail to Respondent No. 2. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 appealed against Page | 5  the order of the learned Single Judge before a Division Bench,  inter alia,   on   the   ground   of   violation   of   the   principles   of   audi   alteram partem . The Division Bench set aside the order on this ground and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It must be noted that the Petitioner herein had also filed an application for impleadment in the proceedings before the Division Bench but the same was closed with liberty to renew the prayer before the Single Judge. 11. On remand, the learned Single Judge first considered the prayer of the De­facto Complainant for withdrawal of the writ petition and also the application of the Petitioner herein to be impleaded as a party. The learned Single Judge, vide an interim order in the second round of proceedings, noted  that the Petitioner is the brother of firstly  the   Deceased   and   has   the   locus   to   file   a   fresh   writ   petition   and secondly,  in view of the alleged threat to life & liberty of the De­facto Complainant, his name was deleted and the Petitioner was transposed as the writ petitioner. The Single Judge observed that the withdrawal of the writ petition at that stage would frustrate the order of the learned Division Bench as well as the ends of justice. It was, thus, again directed that the order of the Link Judge would not be acted upon   and   Respondent   No.   2   shall   not   be   released   from   custody, without an order of the competent court. This order was later, upheld by the Division Bench in appeal. Page | 6  12. Meanwhile the trial proceeded but during his cross­examination, the De­facto Complainant is stated to have resiled from the statement made   during   examination­in­chief   but   nevertheless   he   was   not declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court to declare the De­facto Complainant hostile  and to  allow  the  Petitioner’s  lawyer  to  cross­ examine him. The Trial Court considered the said application and noted that the De­facto Complainant had “ made some statements in his cross examination, which are not in conformity with the version of his   examination­in­chief ”.   The   Petitioner’s   application   was   however, rejected after appreciation of the statutory provisions and the case law. The Trial Court held as follows: “In   view   of   the   discussions   made   in   the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the prosecution should be given a fair chance to unearth the true facts, and an opportunity shall be given to the   Ld.   Spl.   P.P.   to   cross   examine   PW1   after declaring him hostile.  Hence,   the   Ld.   Spl.   P.P.,   and   not   the   Ld. Advocate appointed by this instant petitioner, shall be given permission to cross­examine PW1. The Ld. Advocate appointed by the petitioner Afjal Ali Sha can only be permitted to act under the direction of Ld. Public Prosecutor in view of Sec 301(2) of CrP.C.” 13. Meanwhile, the instant Transfer Petition was filed in which this Court   vide   order   dated   05.10.2021   directed   stay   on   further proceedings in the trial.  Page | 7  14. Thereafter,   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court,   on 02.08.2022,   finally   decided   the   writ   petition   and   set   aside   the Government’s   notification   dated   26.02.2021.   It   was   observed   that “The attending circumstances of the present case do not inspire much confidence in the bona fides of the State and PP behind .  The Court viewed that: ­  the withdrawal” “When the charges were initially levelled, the State itself wished Godspeed to the prosecution, which is reflected from the   pace   at which investigation was concluded   and   trial   commenced.   Yet,   when   the respondent no. 5 allegedly leaned in favour of the ruling   party   of   the   State,   the   prosecution   beat   a hasty   retreat   by   seeking   to   withdraw   the prosecution,   which   would   have   the   effect   of   the accused being discharged scot­free without trial.”  It was also noted that on the one hand, the State was defending the withdrawal of Prosecution and on the other, was expediting the trial wherein several witnesses were resiling from their statements. In light of these circumstances, all action taken in pursuance of the notification   dated   26.02.2021,   including   the   application   and   Trial Court’s order under Section 321, CrPC was set aside. The said order appears to not have been challenged and has attained finality. The Petitioner has further alleged that multiple abnormalities 15. have occurred during the pendency of the trial, such as the change of the Public Prosecutor four times and the harassment meted out to the Page | 8  prosecution witnesses and relatives of the Deceased. The wife of the Deceased,   Saida   Sabana   Banu   Khatun,   is   alleged   to   have   been attacked by Respondent No. 2’s henchmen and relatives of the other accused persons in the premises of the Trial Court. One witness, named Imran Ali, was allegedly abducted by associates of Respondent No. 2 who also threatened to kill him. The Petitioner has contended that his security cover was withdrawn. It is also averred that the authorities were duly informed of such instances but no appropriate action has been taken. The Petitioner also states that false cases, including one alleging rape, have been fastened on him, in an effort to threaten the witnesses and influence them to depose in favour of the accused persons.  16. It is in this factual backdrop that this transfer petition has been filed.  B.  SUBMISSIONS 17. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has raised the following contentions seeking transfer of the trial outside the State of West Bengal: (i) The conduct of the State, which was vigorously opposing the bail applications of Respondent No. 2 in the past, has dramatically   changed   and   is   now   detrimental   to   the Prosecution’s case; Page | 9  (ii) Respondent   No.   2   has   at   least   thirty­four   (34)   criminal cases registered against him and yet, the State directed withdrawal from prosecution without any cogent reason. The power under Section 321, CrPC was blatantly misused; (iii) The De­facto Complainant has been gained over during the trial as is evident from his no­objection to the grant of bail to   Respondent   No.   2;   his   prayer   to   withdraw   the   writ petition challenging the State’s notification under Section 321, CrPC and the De­facto Complainant turning hostile during his cross­examination; (iv) The witnesses are being threatened and are turning hostile in their cross examination. False cases have been instituted against crucial witnesses to browbeat them; (v) There   is   a   serious   threat   to   the   life   and   liberty   of   the witnesses and they may be influenced due to the lack of a safe   environment   to   truthfully   depose   before   the   court. Reliance has been placed on certain observations of the Calcutta High Court regarding the  mala fides  of the State; (vi) It is alleged that on a previous occasion, when the High Court   directed   to   shift   Respondent   No.   2   from   Purba Medinipur to a hospital in Kolkata for medical treatment, the same was not done. Rather, he was kept in the hospital Page | 10  at   Purba   Medinipur   where   he   had   access   to   luxurious facilities; (vii) Reliance has been placed on the High Court’s observations while rejecting Respondent No. 2’s bail application to the effect that: “The   aforesaid   narration   of   events   clearly discloses a prevaricating stance on the part of   the   State   of   West   Bengal.   While   on   one hand,   the   State   proceeded   to   bury   the prosecution   by   resorting   to   its   withdrawal under Section 321 Cr.P.C., on the other hand it   purported   to   continue   the   prosecution against   the   petitioner   and   other   accused persons by examining witnesses.   …   Be that as it may, it is relevant to note in the prosecution conducted by the State, most of the witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements to police and have turned hostile. It is also pertinent to bear in mind even the informant   Jahar   Sha,   the   original   writ petitioner   in   WPA   6315   of   2021   expressed apprehension  and   was  unwilling to  proceed with   the   said   proceeding   challenging withdrawal of prosecution.    These   circumstances   give   rise   to   a   serious apprehension in the mind of this Court as to the   overwhelming   and   malevolent   influence on   the   witnesses   as   well   as   the   informant which   had   prompted   them   from   either withdrawing from the writ petition or resiling from   their   earlier   statements   before   police during deposition in Court.”   (viii) In these circumstances, there is a genuine apprehension in the mind of the Petitioner, brother of the Deceased, that Page | 11  they would not receive free and fair justice in the State of West Bengal as the prosecution is compromised; (ix) Reliance has been placed on   Surendra Pratap Singh v. 1 State of Uttar Pradesh   to urge that in similar facts and circumstances, the trial was transferred from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Madhya Pradesh, in order to do   fair   justice   to   all   the   parties.   The   judgment   in   K. 2 Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka   has also been cited to  iterate that once a  case stands transferred from  one state to another, the transferee state has full control over the prosecution and becomes the prosecuting State. It is the Petitioner’s contention that once the prosecuting state changes,   the   trial   can   be   completed   in   a   fair   and   just manner. During  the course of hearing, Mr. Patwalia clarified that it is not 18. necessary to transfer the trial to the State of Assam and this Court may   consider   the   desirability   of   transferring   it   to   any   other

Kaul, learned senior counsels on behalf of Respondent No. 1­ State of West Bengal and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel on behalf of 1   Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh  (2010) 9 SCC 475. 2   K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka  (2015) 6 SCC 86. Page | 12  Respondent No. 2, contended that the facts as revealed do not make out a case for transfer of the trial outside the State of West Bengal. At the outset, they have challenged the locus of the Petitioner to file this transfer   petition,   contending   that   the   Petitioner   is   not   the complainant and is only a witness in the trial. They have made the following submissions: (i) The Deceased’s wife did not approach the state police about the alleged attack on her in the Trial Court premises on 02.03.2021 and the Petitioner’s security arrangement was never   withdrawn   by   the   State.   The   police   took   prompt action in the matter of abduction of witness Imran Ali as the accused persons & the victims were swiftly located and chargesheet has been filed in the case; (ii) The   veracity   of   the   media   reports   relied   upon   by   the Petitioner to show that Respondent No. 2 has access to facilities,   such   as   smartphone,   headphones   etc.   are   not based upon correct facts; (iii) The   Public   Prosecutor   gave   detailed   reasons   in   his withdrawal application before the Trial Court in compliance with Section 321 of CrPC; (iv) The requirements under Section 406, CrPC are not met in this case as no reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done, is made out.  Page | 13  (v) There   is   no   allegation   or   whisper   of   bias   in   the   State Judiciary   as   is   evident   from   the   fact   that   the   accused persons’ bail applications have constantly been rejected by the Trial Court and such rejection has been upheld in the High   Court.   The   High   Court   has   acted   as   a   robust supervisory mechanism to oversee the trial proceedings and check any lapses occurring therein; (vi) There are no allegations of unfair investigation and the only Trial Court order found fault with was the order passed by the Link Judge allowing the application for withdrawal of prosecution; (vii) There   are  107   Prosecution  witnesses  in   the  trial   out   of which   80   witnesses   reside   in   Purba   Medinipur   district where the trial is going on. Till the trial was stayed by this Court, the Trial Court had examined 11 witnesses. Most witnesses  are  stated  to   be  Bengali  speaking.   In  light  of these circumstances, it is stated that the transfer of the case to a court outside the State of West Bengal will cause extreme   inconvenience   to   the   Prosecution   &   most witnesses. The judgment in  Abdul Nazar Madani v. State 3 of   Tamil   Nadu   wherein   this   Court   considered   the convenience of the Prosecution, other accused persons, the 3   Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu   (2000) 6 SCC 204. Page | 14  witnesses and the larger interest of society while deciding a transfer petition, has been pressed into aid. Other cases 4 have also similarly been cited ; (viii) Reliance has been placed on  Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union 5 of India   wherein this Court noted that the power under Section 406, CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and that transfer   should   be   allowed   only   when   there   is   a   well­ substantiated   apprehension   that   justice   will   not   be dispensed   impartially.   Other   similar   decisions   have   also 6 been brought to our notice ; 7 (ix) has been cited to refer Ashish Chandra v. Asha Kumari   the observations of this Court that transfer of cases have a demoralizing effect on trial courts. (x) The   Deceased   was   and   the   Petitioner   is   a   politically influential person and transfer of the proceedings is sought to a jurisdiction where he will be able to exert his political influence.   The   Deceased   himself   is   stated   to   have   had multiple criminal cases pending against him; 4   Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N.  (2005) 8 SCC 771;  Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi)  (2018) 6 SCC 358;  Swaati Nirkhi v. State (NCT of Delhi)  2021 SCC Online SC 202. 5   Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India  (2011) 1 SCC 307. 6     (1966) 2 SCR 678;   Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal  (2009) 6 SCC 260. 7   Ashish Chandra v. Asha Kumari,  (2012) 1 SCC 680 Page | 15  (xi) There is nothing on record to show that witnesses have been   threatened.   Respondent   no.   2,   being   in   custody, cannot exert any threat or pressure on the witnesses;  (xii) The   Petitioner   has   delayed   the   trial   through   these proceedings and the accused persons have been in custody for over three years. As such, it is contended that prejudice has been caused to the accused persons and they shall incur heavy expenses to defend themselves if the case were to be transferred outside the State of West Bengal; (xiii) To ensure a fair trial, this Court may transfer the case anywhere   in   the   state   and   appoint   a   Public   Prosecutor while protecting the accused persons and the complainant. 20. All   other   Respondents  have  supported  this  stance   and  made similar averments. C.  ANALYSIS   We   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions   made   by   the 21. parties and perused the record. Before adverting to the contentious issue, we  deem it appropriate  to discuss the  settled principles  in relation to the exercise of power to transfer cases under Section 406, CrPC as well as the preliminary objection raised by the respondents on the  locus standi  of the petitioner in seeking transfer of the subject trial.  Page | 16  C.1.  LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONER 22.   Section 406(2) of the CrPC provides that the Supreme Court may transfer a case “only on the application of the Attorney­General of India or of a party interested”.  8 23.  In the case of  K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police , this Court discussed the meaning of expression “a party interested” under Section 406, CrPC and held as follows:

24. Considering   this   apt   and   expansive   interpretation   of   phrase ‘party interested’ under Section 406(2) of the CrPC, we hold that the Petitioner, being the real brother of the Deceased, is vitally interested 8   K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police  (2004) 3 SCC 767. Page | 17  in a fair trial so that the Deceased and his family gets justice. The Respondents’ challenge to the   locus standi   of the Petitioner is thus rejected.  C.2.  GROUNDS FOR TRANSFER 25.  Coming to the second limb of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we may firstly notice some of the well­defined contours in relation thereto. It has by now been well established that a well­ founded apprehension that justice will not be done is a prerequisite for transfer of the case. Tracing the  power of transfer of a case, we are 9 reminded of Lord Hewart’s dictum in  stating Rex v. Sussex Justices   that “ It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance  that   justice  should  not  only   be  done,   but  should ”. manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done 26.  The  right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of 10 the Constitution of India  and its importance cannot be emphasised enough. However, to obtain the transfer of a case, the Petitioner is required to show circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains a reasonable apprehension. This apprehension cannot be 11 imaginary and cannot be a mere allegation. 9   Rex v. Sussex Justices  [1924] 1 KB 256. 10    (2006) 3 SCC 374;  Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani  (1979) 4 SCC 167;  R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala  (2000) 7 SCC 129. 11   Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal  (2009) 6 SCC 260. Page | 18  27. The  power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only when justice is apparently in grave peril. This Court has allowed transfers only in exceptional cases considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspersions on the State 12 Judiciary and the prosecution agency.   Thus, over the years, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and situations wherein such power can be justiciably invoked.  13 28. In   Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal ,   this Court observed as follows:

case­law, this Court enumerated the basic principles of the power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC as follows: “29. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could  be laid  down to  decide whether  or not power under Section 406 CrPC should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub­sections (2) 12    (2011) 1 SCC 307;  Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2020, 22 February 2023]. 13   Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal  (2009) 6 SCC 260. 14   Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India  (2011) 1 SCC 307. Page | 19  and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely  because  an interested party has  expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in   exceptional   situations,   where   it   becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are: (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution   is   acting   hand   in   glove   with   the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice   due   to   the   lackadaisical   attitude   of   the prosecution; (ii)   when   there   is   material   to   show   that   the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii)   comparative   inconvenience   and   hardships likely   to   be   caused   to   the   accused,   the complainant/the   prosecution   and   the   witnesses, besides   the   burden   to   be   borne   by   the   State exchequer   in   making   payment   of   travelling   and other   expenses   of   the   official   and   non­official witnesses; (iv)   a   communally   surcharged   atmosphere, indicating   some   proof   of   inability   of   holding   fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and   the   nature   of   the   crime   committed   by   the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred  that  some  persons  are  so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.”

the   crucial   separation   of   powers   between   the   judiciary   and   the 15   R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala  (2000) 7 SCC 129. Page | 20  executive and held that “ Judges are not influenced in any manner either   by   the   propaganda   or   adverse   publicity.   Cases   are decided on the basis of the evidence available on record and the

spoken by them are also relevant factors when deciding a transfer

17 Rahul Shukla , this Court has viewed that transfer of a criminal case from one state to another implicitly reflects upon credibility of

principles enunciated by this Court from time to time, it is true that the State of West Bengal has taken a complete u­turn with a view to help the main accused, namely, Respondent No. 2 and it went to the extent   of   resorting   to   its   powers   under   Section   321   of   CrPC   to withdraw the prosecution itself. A plain reading of Section 321, CrPC leaves no room to doubt that it is the Public Prosecutor in­charge of the case who has to apply his mind independently and impartially to form a view for withdrawal from the prosecution with the consent of 16   Abdul   Nazar   Madani   v.   State   of   TN   (2000)   6   SCC   204;   Sri   Jayendra   Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N.  (2005) 8 SCC 771;  Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 6 SCC 358. 17   Neelam  Pandey   v.  Rahul   Shukla   [Transfer  Petition   (Criminal)  No.   298  of   2020,  22 February 2023]. Page | 21  the court. The procedure followed in the case in hand was completely alien to the scheme of Section 321, CrPC as the decision to withdraw prosecution was taken at the level of the State Government and the Public Prosecutor was merely asked to act upon the said Government

the application of the Public Prosecutor and permitting withdrawal from prosecution even before the date when the case was listed for

as   a   result   of   the   pro­active   exercise   of   appellate/revisional/writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Not only was the State Government’s notification set aside, the order passed by the Link Judge permitting such withdrawal was also annulled by the High Court. It is a matter of record that the learned Trial Judge has repeatedly declined bail to Respondent No. 2 and even the High Court rejected his prayer for enlargement   on   bail.   In   this   factual   scenario,   the   question   arises whether it is essential to transfer the trial outside the State of West Bengal   or   whether   the   ends   of   justice   can   be   adequately   met   by

appears to us that there is no legal necessity to transfer the trial Page | 22  outside   the   State   of   West   Bengal   and   the   apprehensions   of   the Petitioner,   some   of   which   are   indeed   genuine,   can   be   effectively redressed by issuing appropriate directions. We say so for the reason that more than 90 witnesses, most of whom are Bengali speaking, are yet to be examined. The transfer of trial to any other neighbouring state   will   cause   serious   impediment   in   the   deposition   of   those witnesses and some of them might be reluctant to travel to a far away place   and,   thus,   the   case   of   the   Prosecution   will   be   severely prejudiced.   So   long   as   the   High   Court   and   District   Judiciary   are ensuring the fairness in trial proceedings within their jurisdictional framework, we are not inclined to accept that the victim’s family will

deem it appropriate to dispose of this transfer petition in following

No. 495/2019 registered at Police Station Panskura, District Purba Medinipur is ordered to be transferred from the Court

Medinipur, West Bengal to the Court of Chief Judge, City

Court   and   he   shall   not   entrust   the   case   to   any   other Page | 23 

up the trial on a weekly basis and shall make an effort to

Public   Prosecutor   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta with the prior approval of the High Court. This exercise shall be completed within two

prosecution witnesses shall  be provided adequate security. The State of West Bengal is directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the witnesses and no direct or indirect   attempt   is   made   by   Respondent   No.   2   or   his   co­ accused   persons   or   anyone   on   their   behalf   to   influence,

witness and has allegedly resiled from his version recorded during the examination­in­chief, shall be subjected to cross­ examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, for which the advocate engaged by the Petitioner may provide assistance to the learned Special Public Prosecutor.  Page | 24  (vii) Respondent No. 2 or any other accused who are in custody

as well as other accused who are in custody, shall not be enlarged on bail till the conclusion of trial save and except by

requested   to   regularly   monitor   and   supervise   the   trial

………………………………..J. [SURYA KANT] ………………………………..J. [J.K. MAHESHWARI] NEW DELHI; MARCH 17, 2023. Page | 25