Hrishikesh Roy JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. The present petitions are filed Under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the CrPC") read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules seeking transfer of three criminal cases pending before different courts in Dehradun to competent courts in Delhi or some other courts outside the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner apprehends threat to his life and will be prejudiced in conducting his defense in the courts at Dehradun. The basic premise for such apprehension is that on account of his work as an investigative journalist against the Ruling dispensation, the State is targeting the Petitioner for vindictive prosecution. It is pointed out that as a journalist the Petitioner has conducted sting operations against the Chief Minister, his relatives and associates in the State of Uttarakhand and therefore he is being targeted for malicious prosecution within the State. Moreover, besides the three cases for which transfer is sought, many false cases are foisted against the Petitioner. As such, the Petitioner has a genuine and justifiable apprehension that justice will not be done if the trials are conducted in the courts within the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, those cases be transferred either to the courts in Delhi or to any other competent courts, out of Uttarakhand.
3. Representing the State of Uttarakhand, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, the learned Counsel however submits that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how and in what manner, he will be prejudiced if the trials continue in the courts at Dehradun. According to her, the effort of the Petitioner is filed only to delay the proceedings. Since investigation in all three cases are concluded and charge sheet has been filed, the apprehension of interference in the cases by the State administration is contended to be wholly unfounded. The government counsel then refers to the large number of witnesses in the cases to point out that all of them are residents of the State of Uttarakhand and therefore it will be wholly irrational to transfer the trials only on the basis of unsubstantiated apprehension by the Accused. Rebutting the contention that the Petitioner's life is endangered within the State of Uttarakhand, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, the learned government counsel submits that these petitions are confined to only three cases whereas the Petitioner is Accused in several other cases pending in the State. Moreover, he has himself filed five PILs in the year 2020 itself in the High Court of Uttarakhand and this demonstrates that the Petitioner is conducting his affairs without any impediment. The government advocate then submits that the transfer of criminal cases should be rare and exception since it impacts the credibility of the Courts in Uttarakhand. Ms. Gupta submits that some of the criminal cases against the Petitioner have been closed and the charges of extortion have been dropped. This according to the learned government counsel would clearly demonstrate the unbiased approach of the State Government and the incorrect and bald allegation made by the Petitioner.
4. Representing the Complainant (Ayush Gaur) in the FIR No. 100/2018, Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel points out that his client during his service with the Petitioner learned that the Petitioner is using the cover of j........