IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURSIDCITON
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 67 OF 2017
CHANDER SHARMA @ KAKU AND ANR. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1 In this transfer petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought for transfer of
criminal proceedings in case No.33-8/7 of 2016 arising out of FIR
No.77 dated 16th June, 2014 P.S. Sadar Shimla, District Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh, from the Court of Additional Session Judge, JUDGMENT
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh to any other Court of competent
jurisdiction outside the State of Himahal Pradesh.
2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an
immense threat to the life and security of the petitioners in Shimla.
The Lawyers Associations of the entire State of Himachal Pradesh
have decided not to take up petitioners’ case. They have also
decided not to permit an outside counsel to defend the petitioners
in the case and that there is a general agitation in the State of
Himachal Pradesh against the petitioners. Moreover, proceedings
sought to be transferred are under local media trial. Therefore, in
all likelihood petitioners will not be able to get free and fair trial in
the State of Himachal Pradesh.
3 The respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the
transfer petition. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent State submits that the court has appointed learned
advocates who have more than ten years standing in the Bar for
the accused at the expense of the State. Charges have already been
framed in the case and the accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Out of 114 prosecution witnesses, 33 of them have
already been examined and that the trial has been fixed on day to JUDGMENT
day basis for recording prosecution evidence. On 20th February,
2015, Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned advocate has filed vakalatnama
for accused Vikrant Bakshi. The accused persons are being
defended by the legal aid counsel, as well as learned advocate
appointed by the accused-Vikrant Bakshi.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the
aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
5 In the circumstances, we do not find any justification for
transfer of this case. The transfer petition is dismissed accordingly.
…………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
…………………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi;
April 25, 2017.
JUDGMENT