SC Rejects Plea to Transfer Punjab Sacrilege Cases, Ensures Fair Trial
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a set of transfer petitions filed by Jatinderveer Arora and others seeking to shift the trial of multiple criminal cases from Punjab to either Delhi or a neighboring state. The cases revolved around allegations of sacrilege of the holy book, Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, at different locations in Punjab. The petitioners, members of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, cited fears of bias, social hostility, and safety threats, claiming that a fair trial was not possible in Punjab.
Background of the Case
The petitioners sought the transfer of trials pending in courts in Bhatinda, Moga, and Faridkot districts to another state, alleging that the communal atmosphere in Punjab was highly surcharged against them. They argued that local sentiment and past violent incidents had made it impossible for them to get a fair trial. One of the accused, Mohinder Pal Singh Bittoo, was murdered inside Nabha Central Jail on June 22, 2019, raising further concerns about their safety.
Additionally, the petitioners claimed that appeals for their social boycott had been made, affecting their access to legal representation, medical aid, and transportation. They also alleged that a forced statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was extracted from one of the accused, Jatinderveer Arora, suggesting a biased prosecution.
Arguments by the Petitioners
The petitioners, represented by senior counsel Ranjit Kumar, argued the following:
- The ongoing hostility in Punjab made it impossible for them to receive a fair trial.
- There was a social boycott against them, with lawyers, doctors, and taxi drivers being pressured not to assist them.
- The presence of large crowds at court hearings posed a serious security risk.
- The forced statement under Section 164 CrPC demonstrated coercion in the prosecution process.
- The safety and security of the accused were at grave risk, as evidenced by the jail murder of one of the co-accused.
Arguments by the Respondents (State of Punjab)
The State of Punjab, represented by senior counsel Harin P Raval, countered the petitioners’ claims:
- The petitioners had been granted bail and continued to reside in Punjab without any hindrance.
- Their legal defense was intact, as their lead counsels had been representing them since the beginning without obstruction.
- No concrete evidence was provided to substantiate claims of denial of medical or transportation services.
- Security arrangements for the accused were in place, and additional protections were available upon request.
- Transferring the cases out of Punjab would severely inconvenience witnesses, the prosecution, and other stakeholders.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Hrishikesh Roy, delivering the judgment, analyzed the claims of bias and security concerns and made the following key observations:
1. No Overwhelming Proof of Prejudice
The Court held that mere apprehensions of bias are not enough to warrant a transfer of trial. It ruled:
“For transfer of trial from one court to another, the Court must be fully satisfied about the existence of such factors that make it impossible to conduct a fair trial. General allegations of a surcharged atmosphere are not sufficient.”
2. Petitioners Reside in Punjab Without Threats
The Court noted that the petitioners continued to live in Punjab, conduct their business, and participate in daily activities without fear:
“The fact that the petitioners are freely residing in Punjab and going about their routine affairs negates the argument that they are under an imminent threat.”
3. Legal Representation and Fair Trial Not Hindered
The Court observed that the petitioners had been consistently represented by the same senior counsels since January 2019, indicating no real difficulty in legal representation.
“The claim that the petitioners are being denied legal representation is not supported by facts, as their regular lawyers have been appearing on their behalf without interruption.”
4. No Evidence of Judicial Bias
The Court ruled that shifting the trial out of Punjab would imply a lack of trust in the state’s judiciary, which was not justified.
“When the courts are able to function uninfluenced by public sentiment, shifting of trial is unwarranted.”
5. Security Measures are in Place
The Court acknowledged the security concerns but noted that adequate measures were being taken by the Punjab Police. The Director General of Police (DGP) had assured full security arrangements, and special forces were deployed at court premises on trial dates.
6. Impact on Witnesses and Trial Proceedings
The Court also took into account the inconvenience to witnesses and other stakeholders if the trial were to be moved.
“Shifting the trial to another state would cause undue hardship to witnesses and delay the proceedings, which is not in the interest of justice.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petitions, ruling:
- The petitioners’ claims of bias and security threats were not supported by concrete evidence.
- The Punjab judiciary was fully capable of conducting a fair trial.
- Security measures would be enhanced to ensure the safety of the accused and their legal representatives.
- The trial would proceed in Punjab, and no transfer to another state or Chandigarh was required.
Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms the principle that a trial should not be transferred merely based on apprehensions of bias or vague allegations of prejudice. The Supreme Court has emphasized that fair trials must be ensured within the state where the offense occurred, provided there is no compelling evidence of judicial partiality or threats to life. By dismissing the plea, the Court upheld the faith in Punjab’s judicial system while ensuring that proper security measures are in place for the accused.
Petitioner Name: Jatinderveer Arora & Others.Respondent Name: State of Punjab.Judgment By: Justice Hrishikesh Roy.Place Of Incident: Punjab, India.Judgment Date: 25-11-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Jatinderveer Arora & vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-11-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
