Jatinderveer Arora & Ors. vs State Of Punjab

Sl. No.,Details of TP (Crl.),Case No.,FIR Details,Stage

1.,"T P ( C r l . ) No.

452/2019

Jatinderveer Arora

& Ors. Vs. State o

Punjab","CHI No.3/2019

f","FIR No.161/2015 dt.

20.10.2015 PS

Dayalpura, Dist.-

Bathinda","C h a r g e NDOH:

21.09.2019

2.,"T P ( C r l . ) No.

458/2019 Baljit Singh

& Ors. Vs. State o

Punjab","CHI No.4/2019

f","FIR No.86/2016 dt.

21.06.2016 PS

Dayalpura, Dist.-

Bathinda","C h a r g e NDOH:

21.09.2019

3.,"T P ( C r l . ) No.

459/2019 Prithvi

Singh & Ors. Vs

State of Punjab","CHI No.84/2019

.","FIR No.79/2015 dt.

04.11.2015 PS

Samalsar, Dist.-

Moga","Prosecution

evidence NDOH

23.09.2019

4.,"T P ( C r l . ) No.

460/2019 Baljit Singh

& Ors. Vs. State o

Punjab","CHI No.6/2019

f","FIR No.98/2016 dt.

03.07.2016 PS

Dayalpura, Dist.-

Bathinda","C h a r g e NDOH:

21.09.2019

5.,"T P ( C r l . ) No.

461/2019 Bajit Singh

& Ors. Vs. State o

Punjab","CHI No.5/2019

f","FIR No.89/2016 dt.

29.06.2016 PS

Dayalpura, Dist.-

Bathinda","C h a r g e NDOH:

21.09.2019

6.,"T P ( C r l . ) No.

462/2019

Sukhwinder Singh @

Sunny & Ors. Vs

State of Punjab","SC No.67/2019

.","FIR No.89/2018 dt.

13.06.2018 PS City

Kotkapura, Dist.-

Faridkot","Evidence NDOH:

09.10.2019

fair to the prosecution, the State and the witnesses who are yet to testify, to shift the proceeding without compelling reasons as it will inevitably delay",,,,

the trial. One must also remember that convenience of all parties should be looked at and not just the party which is seeking transfer.,,,,

Another vital aspect, as has been pointed out by the state counsel, will bear consideration. The Complainant Iqbal Singh, in relation to the FIR",,,,

161/15 (Jatinderveer Arora Vs. State of Punjab) filed application with prayer to shift the case from JMIC, Phul to any other Court in Bhatinda. The",,,,

said application came to be dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda by an order dated 04.02.2020, wherein it has been recorded",,,,

that the accused opposed the transfer application. In such circumstances, the contrary plea for shifting of trial venue made before this Court would",,,,

suggest that the Petitioners have taken conflicting stand on shifting of trial venue before different forums.,,,,

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied upon two judgments of this Court [Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) (supra)",,,,

and Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh (supra)] where change of trial venue was allowed. In the present matter, although the case could generate strong",,,,

feelings between the opposing groups, no such overwhelming factors as was visible in Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) (supra) are brought to",,,,

light by the learned counsel. In the second case i.e. Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh (supra), the Court found that the State was conducting the",,,,

investigation in a partisan manner and likelihood of miscarriage of justice was visible. The subversion of justice delivery system in the concerned State,,,,

was seen and congenial atmosphere was found missing. For such compelling factors, the Court directed that re-trial shall be done by a Court under the",,,,

jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and public prosecutor be changed. However, the circumstances in the present matters cannot be equated with",,,,

those noticed in Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh (supra) or in Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) (supra). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion",,,,

that similar relief cannot be granted in the present proceedings.,,,,

From the available material, this Court cannot reasonably conclude that the situation in Punjab is not conducive for a fair trial for the petitioners.",,,,

The few instances mentioned by the petitioners’ counsel may suggest heightened feelings amongst different groups but they do not in my,,,,

estimation, call for transfer of proceedings to another State.",,,,

Moreover, it cannot just be the convenience of the petitioner but also of the Complainant, the Witnesses, the Prosecution. The larger issue of trial",,,,

normally being conducted by the jurisdictional Court must also weigh on the issue. When relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties involved,,,,

in the process are taken into account, the conclusion is inevitable that no credible case for transfer of trial to alternative venues outside the State of",,,,

Punjab is made out, in the present matters.",,,,

The final submission of Petitioners’ counsel was that, if the Trials cannot be shifted to Delhi, they should be shifted to Chandigarh. This was",,,,

not the pleaded case of the Petitioners. The suggested alternate venue is Punjab’s capital and even though Chandigarh is an Union Territory, the",,,,

population pattern in the city is like the rest of Punjab. Such alternative plea on the grounds pleaded in these matters cannot therefore be,,,,

countenanced.,,,,

The transfer of trial from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary. Except for compelling factors,,,,

and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked. The present bunch of cases are not perceived to be amongst",,,,

such exceptional categories.,,,,

For the above reasons, these cases are found devoid of merit. Nonetheless, the State as assured to this Court, must make all arrangement to",,,,

ensure safe conduct of proceedings at the trial courts and also provide adequate security to the petitioners and their associates as might be warranted,,,,

from the security perspective. It is however made clear that the observations in this judgment are only for disposal of these petitions and should have,,,,

no bearing for any other purpose.,,,,

Subject to the aforesaid cautionary observation, the cases are dismissed.",,,,