Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed six transfer petitions filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking transfer of criminal trials from courts in Bhatinda, Moga, and Faridkot districts of Punjab to a competent court in Delhi or any nearby state outside Punjab. The petitioners, members of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, were accused in multiple cases involving alleged sacrilege of the holy book Shri Guru Granth Sahibji. They contended that the atmosphere in Punjab was communally surcharged, leading to bias and prejudice against them, making a fair trial impossible. They cited the murder of a co-accused in jail, public appeals for social boycott, and a forced statement under Section 164 CrPC as evidence of threat and prejudice. The State of Punjab opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioners continued to reside and work in Punjab without hindrance, had not lodged any complaints of threat, and were represented by the same lead counsels throughout. The State assured foolproof security arrangements. The court, after analyzing precedents including Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, Abdul Nazar Madan v. State of T.N., and Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, held that the power under Section 406 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when fair trial is impossible. The court found that the petitioners' apprehensions were not supported by credible material; they continued their daily routines without inhibition, and the solitary instance of a Section 164 statement was voluntarily made. The court concluded that shifting the trial would cast aspersions on the lawful courts and cause inconvenience to all stakeholders. Accordingly, the transfer petitions were dismissed, with the court directing the trial courts to proceed expeditiously and the State to ensure adequate security.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Trial - Section 406 CrPC - Fair Trial - The court must be fully satisfied that fair and impartial trial is impossible due to external factors; general allegations of surcharged atmosphere are insufficient; each case decided on its own facts (Paras 11-12). B) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Trial - Apprehension of Bias - Credible Material - Apprehension of not getting a fair trial must be based on credible material, not conjectures; petitioners continuing to reside and work in Punjab without hindrance indicates no real threat (Paras 4, 8, 13). C) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Trial - Section 164 CrPC Statement - Voluntary Statement - A solitary instance of a forced statement claim was negated by magistrate's satisfaction of voluntariness; cannot be used by other petitioners without basis (Paras 6, 14). D) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Trial - Security Arrangements - State's assurance of foolproof security and deployment of additional force on trial dates allays apprehension of threat to life (Paras 3.3, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the situation in Punjab is so communally surcharged that the petitioners will be deprived of a fair trial if the criminal cases are conducted within the State.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all transfer petitions, holding that no case for transfer under Section 406 CrPC was made out. The court directed the trial courts to proceed with the cases expeditiously and the State to ensure adequate security for all stakeholders.
Law Points
- Transfer of trial under Section 406 CrPC must be exercised sparingly
- only when fair and impartial trial is impossible
- general allegations of surcharged atmosphere insufficient
- each case decided on its own facts
- burden on petitioner to show credible material of prejudice.
