Hrishikesh Roy JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. These 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 Trial of criminal cases ding before the Courts at Bhatinda, Moga and Faridkot districts to competent Court in Delhi or to any nearby State, out of Punjab.
2.1. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that as the matters relate to alleged sacrilege of the holy book, Shri Guru Granth Sahibji in different places in Punjab, deep anguish and bitterness is generated amongst a particular religious group, who form majority of the population in the State of Punjab and therefore the Accused who are members of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, are facing bias and prejudice and are unlikely to get a fair trial in the face of strong presumption of culpability.
2.2. According to the Petitioners, the situation in Bhatinda and other places is communally surcharged where, fair trial is a near impossibility. In support of such contention, the Senior Counsel refers to the murder of the Accused Mohinder Pal Singh Bittoo on 22.06.2019 inside the Nabha Central jail, which according to Mr. Kumar, clearly shows the threat to the lives of other co-Accused in the hands of the radical elements in the State.
2.3. Moreover, public appeals have been made to socially boycott the Accused and also to those dealing with them, such as lawyers, doctors and taxi drivers and these developments would indicate the serious difficulties faced by the Accused in conducting their defence.
2.4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a forced statement Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained from the Petitioner Jatinderveer Arora and this would suggest that in Punjab, an unbiased prosecution cannot be ensured.
2.5. The mass gathering in the court premises where these cases are listed on the given dates, is highlighted by the Senior Counsel to emphasize the threat to the life of the Accused since adequate arrangement and security has not been provided by the State.
3.1. Representing the State of Punjab, Mr. Harin P Raval, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand argues that no case for transfer is made out by the Petitioners. The Senior Counsel submits that although Petitioners speak of surcharged atmosphere and threat to their life in Punjab, after getting bail, they continue to reside and conduct their affairs in their respective place without any threat or hindrance. The State Counsel then submits that Petitioners have not suffered any prejudice in conducting their defence as the same two lead counsels continue to represent them since beginning. That apart, no specific instance, of denial of medical or transportation service or legal assistance is brought to the Court's notice, notwithstanding the so called public appeal made by few people.
3.2. According to the State's lawyer, the Petitioners have suppressed material facts. Moreover, one solitary incident of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure statement of one of the Petitioners i.e. Jatinderveer Arora (CHI No. 3/2019) is being relied upon by the other Petitioners to project prejudice although they are involved in other cases. It is then pointed out that Jatinderveer Arora while in judicial