Court cannot be perceived to be accused or victim centric: Bombay High Court observes while refusing to transfer case from Thane Sessions Judge

While refusing to transfer a pending trial from one Sessions Judge to another, the Bombay High Court recently observed that courts cannot be perceived to be biased towards the accused or the victim (Sandeep Lahoriya v. State of Maharashtra)..The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale made the observation while disposing of a plea filed by one Sandeep Lahoriya seeking a direction from the High Court to transfer his case from Sessions Judge RR Vaishnav to any other court..The Court refused to grant the directions prayed for by the petitioner, opining,"We are of the opinion that the role of the court presided over by the learned Judge and that of the Public Prosecutor is to ensure that the accused are brought to book and that proceedings are conducted in a fair manner so as to ensure that justice is done, both to the accused as well as to the victim.The endeavour of the proceedings is to ascertain as to who is guilty of the alleged crime and it can neither be an approach giving an impression that there is a bias, either in favour of the accused or the victim. Neither can a Court be perceived to be accused centric nor can it be perceived to be victim centric in its approach.".The Court further held that transfer of a criminal trial from one court to another cannot be routinely ordered. The apprehension expressed by the parties has to be reasonable and based on sufficient material on record, the Bench reiterated..The petitioner was the son of late Sunil Lahoriya, who was murdered in front of his office pursuant to which an FIR was registered, chargesheets were filed, accused were arrested and trial commenced..During the pendency of the trial before the Sessions Court at Thane, Maharashtra in 2018, an order was passed by the Division Bench of High Court to expedite the proceedings of the trial court..After this order, a writ petition came to be filed in the High Court arising out of certain orders passed by the Sessions Court wherein prayers were also made for grant of bail to the accused persons, considering the slow pace at which the trial was being conducted..The High Court was not inclined to grant any relief in this petition, considering its earlier order directing the trial to be conducted on a day-to-day basis. However, after it was found that the Presiding Judge was over-burdened with other work, the Division Bench directed the transfer of the trial to Judge Vaishnav.One of the accused in this case challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which upheld the transfer of the case in August 2019..Pursuant to the transfer of the proceedings, the trial was undertaken and 52 witnesses stood examined. At this stage, Lahoriya moved an application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thane under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking transfer of the trial from Judge Vaishnav to another Sessions Judge..The Principal Judge of the Sessions Court, Thane subsequently passed an order recording that the petitioner was required to satisfy his locus to file such an application. Since a transfer had already been granted, any further transfer would amount to “judicial indiscipline”, the judge had held..Aggrieved by the order, the present plea was filed before the High Court, which issued notice and stayed the proceedings before the trial court. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was not taken up for hearing until this year..The principal ground raised by Lahoriya was the manner in which Judge Vaishnav has been conducting the trial. Lahoriya claimed that the judge's conduct was creating an apprehension that he is in a hurry to wrap up the trial, due to which procedural and substantive errors had allegedly been committed while conducting the trial..He listed out following instances, among others, to substantiate the contention in his plea:Complaints made by the witnesses about the threat and pressure from the accused are being ignored by the judge.Vital CCTV footage required to be shown to the witnesses was not shown despite availability of facility at the Court.The bail applications of two accused persons were hurriedly considered and allowed by the judge..Special Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai submitted that there were certain observations made against the prosecutor before the Sessions Court which were unjustified..Senior Advocate Rajeev Chavan, appearing for the co-accused, opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, terming them “imaginary and fanciful”. He submitted that these contentions were raised with an intention to delay the proceedings before the Sessions Court. He argued,“The only interest of the petitioner appeared to be to prolong the matter so that the accused persons continue to languish in jail.”.Upon considering the submissions of the parties, the Court opined,“...acceding to the prayers made on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition would amount to reopening the consideration on the basis of which the order dated 9th August, 2019 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which significantly stood confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. It is only if glaring circumstances are demonstrated by the petitioner that such an exercise can perhaps be undertaken.”.While refusing to transfer the case, the Court passed certain directions to the Sessions Judge and the public prosecutor appearing in the case.“This Court expects the SPP representing the prosecution in the court below as well as the learned Judge conducting the trial to ensure that the trial is conducted in a manner, which is fair and proper. The role of the counsel representing the accused is also crucial because they are expected to perform their duties as officers of the Court.”.The Court also directed the Principal Judge of the Thane Sessions Court “to ensure that workload in the court of Judge, R.R. Vaishnav is reduced, so that day-to-day trial of the present case is facilitated.”.[Read judgment here]