REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 409 OF 2021
Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha … Petitioner
                                             VERSUS
State of West Bengal & Ors. … Respondents
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. This   transfer   petition   has   been   preferred   under   Section   406   of
the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter,   ‘CrPC’),   read   with
Article 139A of the Constitution of India and Order 39 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013. The Petitioner herein is the brother of one Kurban
Sha (hereinafter, ‘Deceased’) and he seeks transfer of the criminal trial
S.T. No. 1 (03) of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 495 of 2019 registered at
PS   Panskura,   pending   in   the   Court   of   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   3 rd
Court,   Tamluk,   Purba   Medinipur,   West   Bengal   (hereinafter,   ‘Trial
Court’),   to   a  competent  court  in   the  State   of   Assam,   primarily  on  the
ground that a fair trial will not be possible in the State of West Bengal.
A.  FACTS
Page |  1  

2. The   factual   matrix   is   succinctly   discussed   below   before   delving
into the aforesaid issue that arises for our consideration: ­
3. On the date of incident, i.e., 07.10.2019, the Deceased is alleged
to   have   been   shot   in   the   neck   by   ‘certain   unknown   musclemen   &
goons’   when   he   was   working   in   the   office   of   a   political   party.   The
Deceased   was   immediately   rushed   to   a   hospital   but   was   declared
dead  on  arrival.    On  the next day,  the subject FIR was lodged  under
Section   302   read   with   Section   120B   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860
(hereinafter,   ‘IPC’)   and,   under   Sections   25   and   27   of   the   Arms   Act,
1959   against   Respondent   No.   2   at   the   behest   of   one   Jahar   Sha
(hereinafter,   ‘De­facto   Complainant’),   who   is   stated   to   be   the
Deceased’s nephew and an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence.
4. After   investigation,   the   police   authorities   concluded   that
Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 were also involved in the offence, along with
Respondent   No.   2.   A   chargesheet   was   submitted   against   the   said
individuals  along  with  a list  of  107  witnesses,  including   the   De­facto
Complainant and the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that during
the   investigation,   the   police   is   also   said   to   have   recovered   some
incriminating   material   such   as   fire   arms,   ammunition   and   certain
documents. 
5. Accordingly,   charges   were   framed   against  Respondent  Nos.   2  to
8 and Respondent No. 11 by the Trial Court under Sections 302 read
Page |  2  

with  120B  of  IPC  and,  under  Sections 25 and  27 of Arms Act,  1959.
Respondent Nos. 9 & 10 had previously been declared as proclaimed
offenders.   The   trial   commenced   in   September,   2020.   The   main
accused, i.e., Respondent No. 2, continues in custody as his repeated
bail applications have been dismissed by the Trial Court as well as by
the Calcutta High Court.
6. During the pendency of the trial, the Legal Remembrancer & Ex­
Officio   Secretary   to   the   Government   of   West   Bengal,   Judicial
Department, by an order of the Governor, issued a notification dated
26.02.2021   directing   the   Public   Prosecutor   to   apply   under   Section
321   of   CrPC   and   withdraw   the   criminal   proceedings   against
Respondent   Nos.   2   to   11,   subject   to   the   consent   of   the   learned   Trial
Court.   This   notification   was   challenged   by   the   De­facto   Complainant
before the Calcutta High Court. 
7. Soon   thereafter,   on   01.03.2021,   a   newly   appointed   Public
Prosecutor   moved   an   application   before   the   learned   Trial   Court
praying   for   withdrawal   of   the   prosecution   case   stating   that   it   was
marred   with   political   and   personal   vendetta.   This   application   was
taken  up   for   hearing   on   the  very  next  day  by   a  Link   Judge   who   was
presiding over the Trial Court, despite the fact that the case was listed
for recording evidence on 10.03.2021. The Link Judge was reportedly
informed   about   the   pending   challenge   to   the   notification   dated
Page |  3  

26.02.2021   at   the   Calcutta   High   Court,   but   regardless   thereto,   he
proceeded   to   hear   the   application   and   allowed   the   Prosecution   to
withdraw the case. As a result, Respondent Nos. 2­11 were acquitted.
8.   Meanwhile,   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   De­facto   Complainant
was taken up for hearing on the afternoon of the same day when the
Trial   Court   had   allowed   the   Public   Prosecutor   to   withdraw   the
criminal   case.   A   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   noted   as
follows:
“Surprisingly,   in   the   instant   case,   a   specific
notification   was   issued   on   February   26,   2021,
apparently   communicating   a   direction   of   the
Governor to instruct the concerned Public Prosecutor
to   withdraw   the   case–in­question   subject   to   the
consent   of   the   Sessions   Court.   However,   not   an   iota
of   reason   and/or   how   such   withdrawal   would
advance the cause of justice and public interest has
been   indicated   in   the   said   order.   That   apart,   the
modus   operandi   in   the   present   case   is   rather
transparent   since   the   Public   Prosecutor   actually
acted   on   such   instruction   and   made   an   application
pursuant   to   the  order   of   the   State  Government   and,
despite   having   knowledge   of   this   Court   being   in
seisin   of   the   present   writ   petition,   the   concerned
Sessions   Judge   has   granted   consent   for   such
withdrawal,   which   has   the   effect   of   acquitting   the
accused persons.
It   is   evident   from   the   stand   of   the   State   taken
on   all   previous   occasions   when   bail   was   rejected,
that the State vehemently opposed even the grant of
bail to the accused. Hence, it defies logic completely
as to what prompted the Government to instruct the
Public   Prosecutor­in­   question   to   withdraw   the   case
against the accused persons all of a sudden.
Despite   the   self­imposed   restraint   which   this
court   imposes   upon   itself   in   the   exercise   of
Page |  4  

jurisdiction   under  Article  226  of  the   Constitution   of
India,   such  restraint   cannot   be  a   fetter  to the  court
exercising   such   jurisdiction   for   the   ends   of   justice
where   manifest   abuse   of   the   process   of   law   has
taken   place.   If   the   writ   court   shuts   its   eyes   to   the
perpetration   of   mala   fide   and   arbitrary
administrative   action,   it   would   be   failing   in   its
incumbent   duty   of   judicial   review   conferred   by   the
Constitution of India. 
In the present case, in view of the arbitrary and
unreasoned nature of the instructions of the State to
the   Public   Prosecutor   dated   February   26,   2021,
pursuant   to   which   the   Public   Prosecutor   acted   and
even   the   Sessions   Court   granted   consent   to   such
withdrawal,   the   said   instruction   as   well   as   the
effects thereof have to be set aside.”
9. The  High Court observed that none of the  parameters  to invoke
jurisdiction   under   Section   321   of   CrPC   were   applied   either   by   the
Public Prosecutor or by the State and resultantly, it was held that the
exercise   was   bad   in   law   and   that   the   mala   fides   of   the   State   was
evident from its contradictory stand wherein it previously opposed the
bail   applications   but   now   was   seeking   to   withdraw   the   prosecution
itself.   Accordingly,   the   High   Court   directed   that   any   action   taken   in
the meantime, pursuant to the State Government’s notification dated
26.02.2021,   including   the   order   allowing   withdrawal   of   the   case   was
liable to be set aside. It ordered accordingly.
10. The   De­facto   Complainant   thereafter   submitted   an   affidavit
before the Trial Court expressing his ‘no­objection’ to the grant of bail
to Respondent No. 2. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 appealed against
Page |  5  

the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   before   a   Division   Bench,   inter
alia,   on   the   ground   of   violation   of   the   principles   of   audi   alteram
partem .   The   Division   Bench   set   aside   the   order   on   this   ground   and
remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It must be noted that the
Petitioner herein had also filed an application for impleadment in the
proceedings  before  the  Division  Bench  but the  same  was  closed  with
liberty to renew the prayer before the Single Judge.
11. On remand, the learned Single Judge first considered the prayer
of   the   De­facto   Complainant   for   withdrawal   of   the   writ   petition   and
also   the   application   of   the   Petitioner   herein   to   be   impleaded   as   a
party.  The  learned   Single  Judge,  vide  an   interim   order  in  the  second
round of proceedings, noted  firstly  that the Petitioner is the brother of
the   Deceased   and   has   the   locus   to   file   a   fresh   writ   petition   and
secondly,   in view of the alleged   threat to life & liberty of the De­facto
Complainant, his name was deleted and the Petitioner was transposed
as the writ petitioner. The Single Judge observed that the withdrawal
of   the   writ   petition   at   that   stage   would   frustrate   the   order   of   the
learned   Division   Bench   as   well   as   the   ends   of   justice.   It   was,   thus,
again   directed   that   the   order   of   the   Link   Judge   would   not   be   acted
upon   and   Respondent   No.   2   shall   not   be   released   from   custody,
without an order of the competent court. This order was later, upheld
by the Division Bench in appeal.
Page |  6  

12. Meanwhile the trial proceeded but during his cross­examination,
the De­facto Complainant is stated to have resiled from the statement
made   during   examination­in­chief   but   nevertheless   he   was   not
declared   hostile   by   the   Public   Prosecutor.   Thereafter,   the   Petitioner
filed   an   application   before   the   Trial   Court   to   declare   the   De­facto
Complainant   hostile   and   to   allow   the   Petitioner’s   lawyer   to   cross­
examine   him.   The   Trial   Court   considered   the   said   application   and
noted   that   the   De­facto   Complainant   had   “ made   some   statements   in
his  cross   examination,   which   are   not  in   conformity   with   the  version  of
his   examination­in­chief ”.   The   Petitioner’s   application   was   however,
rejected   after   appreciation   of   the   statutory   provisions   and   the   case
law. The Trial Court held as follows:
“In   view   of   the   discussions   made   in   the
foregoing   paragraphs,   I   am   of   the   opinion   that   the
prosecution should be given a fair chance to unearth
the   true   facts,   and   an   opportunity  shall   be   given   to
the   Ld.   Spl.   P.P.   to   cross   examine   PW1   after
declaring him hostile. 
Hence,   the   Ld.   Spl.   P.P.,   and   not   the   Ld.
Advocate   appointed   by   this   instant   petitioner,   shall
be   given   permission   to   cross­examine   PW1.   The   Ld.
Advocate   appointed   by   the   petitioner   Afjal   Ali   Sha
can   only   be   permitted   to   act   under   the   direction   of
Ld. Public Prosecutor in view of Sec 301(2) of CrP.C.”
13. Meanwhile,   the  instant  Transfer   Petition   was   filed  in   which   this
Court   vide   order   dated   05.10.2021   directed   stay   on   further
proceedings in the trial. 
Page |  7  

14. Thereafter,   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court,   on
02.08.2022,   finally   decided   the   writ   petition   and   set   aside   the
Government’s   notification   dated   26.02.2021.   It   was   observed   that
“The attending circumstances of the present case do not inspire
much   confidence   in   the   bona   fides   of   the   State   and   PP   behind
the withdrawal” .  The Court viewed that: ­ 
“When   the   charges   were   initially   levelled,   the   State
itself   wished   Godspeed   to   the   prosecution,   which   is
reflected   from   the   pace   at   which   investigation   was
concluded   and   trial   commenced.   Yet,   when   the
respondent   no.   5   allegedly   leaned   in   favour   of   the
ruling   party   of   the   State,   the   prosecution   beat   a
hasty   retreat   by   seeking   to   withdraw   the
prosecution,   which   would   have   the   effect   of   the
accused being discharged scot­free without trial.” 
It was also noted that on the one hand, the State was defending
the   withdrawal   of   Prosecution   and   on   the   other,   was   expediting   the
trial wherein several witnesses were resiling from their statements. In
light   of   these   circumstances,   all   action   taken   in   pursuance   of   the
notification   dated   26.02.2021,   including   the   application   and   Trial
Court’s   order   under   Section   321,   CrPC   was   set  aside.   The   said   order
appears to not have been challenged and has attained finality.
15. The   Petitioner   has   further   alleged   that   multiple   abnormalities
have occurred during the pendency of the trial, such as the change of
the Public Prosecutor four times and the harassment meted out to the
Page |  8  

prosecution   witnesses   and   relatives   of   the   Deceased.   The   wife   of   the
Deceased,   Saida   Sabana   Banu   Khatun,   is   alleged   to   have   been
attacked  by   Respondent  No.   2’s  henchmen   and  relatives  of  the   other
accused   persons   in   the   premises   of   the   Trial   Court.   One   witness,
named Imran Ali, was allegedly abducted by associates of Respondent
No.   2   who   also   threatened   to   kill   him.   The   Petitioner   has   contended
that   his   security   cover   was   withdrawn.   It   is   also   averred   that   the
authorities   were   duly   informed   of   such   instances   but   no   appropriate
action   has   been   taken.   The   Petitioner   also   states   that   false   cases,
including one alleging rape, have been fastened on him, in an effort to
threaten the witnesses and influence them to depose in favour of the
accused persons. 
16. It is in this factual backdrop that this transfer petition has been
filed. 
B.  SUBMISSIONS
17. Mr.   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   Petitioner   has
raised   the   following   contentions   seeking   transfer   of   the   trial   outside
the State of West Bengal:
(i) The   conduct   of   the   State,   which   was   vigorously   opposing
the   bail   applications   of   Respondent   No.   2   in   the   past,   has
dramatically   changed   and   is   now   detrimental   to   the
Prosecution’s case;
Page |  9  

(ii) Respondent   No.   2   has   at   least   thirty­four   (34)   criminal
cases   registered   against   him   and   yet,   the   State   directed
withdrawal   from   prosecution   without   any   cogent   reason.
The power under Section 321, CrPC was blatantly misused;
(iii) The De­facto Complainant has been gained over during the
trial as is evident from his no­objection to the grant of bail
to   Respondent   No.   2;   his   prayer   to   withdraw   the   writ
petition   challenging   the   State’s   notification   under   Section
321,   CrPC   and   the   De­facto   Complainant   turning   hostile
during his cross­examination;
(iv) The witnesses are being threatened and are turning hostile
in their cross examination. False cases have been instituted
against crucial witnesses to browbeat them;
(v) There   is   a   serious   threat   to   the   life   and   liberty   of   the
witnesses and they may be influenced due to  the lack of a
safe   environment   to   truthfully   depose   before   the   court.
Reliance   has   been   placed   on   certain   observations   of   the
Calcutta  High   Court  regarding   the   mala   fides   of   the   State;
(vi) It   is   alleged   that   on   a   previous   occasion,   when   the   High
Court   directed   to   shift   Respondent   No.   2   from   Purba
Medinipur   to   a   hospital   in   Kolkata   for   medical   treatment,
the same was not done. Rather, he was kept in the hospital
Page |  10  

at   Purba   Medinipur   where   he   had   access   to   luxurious
facilities;
(vii) Reliance has been placed on the High Court’s observations
while   rejecting   Respondent   No.   2’s   bail   application   to   the
effect that:
“The   aforesaid   narration   of   events   clearly
discloses   a   prevaricating   stance   on   the   part
of   the   State   of   West   Bengal.   While   on   one
hand,   the   State   proceeded   to   bury   the
prosecution   by   resorting   to   its   withdrawal
under   Section   321   Cr.P.C.,   on   the   other   hand
it   purported   to   continue   the   prosecution
against   the   petitioner   and   other   accused
persons by examining witnesses.  
…  
Be that as it may, it is relevant to note in the
prosecution   conducted   by   the   State,   most   of
the   witnesses   have   resiled   from   their   earlier
statements   to  police  and  have  turned   hostile.
It   is   also   pertinent   to   bear   in   mind   even   the
informant   Jahar   Sha,   the   original   writ
petitioner   in   WPA   6315   of   2021   expressed
apprehension   and   was   unwilling   to   proceed
with   the   said   proceeding   challenging
withdrawal of prosecution.   
These   circumstances   give   rise   to   a   serious
apprehension   in   the   mind   of   this   Court   as   to
the   overwhelming   and   malevolent   influence
on   the   witnesses   as   well   as   the   informant
which   had   prompted   them   from   either
withdrawing from the writ petition or resiling
from   their   earlier   statements   before   police
during deposition in Court.”  
(viii) In these circumstances, there is a genuine apprehension in
the   mind   of   the   Petitioner,   brother   of   the   Deceased,   that
Page |  11  

they   would   not   receive   free   and   fair   justice   in   the   State   of
West Bengal as the prosecution is compromised;
(ix) Reliance   has   been   placed   on   Surendra   Pratap   Singh   v.
State   of   Uttar   Pradesh 1
  to   urge   that  in   similar   facts   and
circumstances,   the   trial   was   transferred   from   the   State   of
Uttar  Pradesh  to  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  in  order  to
do   fair   justice   to   all   the   parties.   The   judgment   in   K.
Anbazhagan  v. State  of  Karnataka 2
  has also been cited
to   iterate   that   once   a   case   stands   transferred   from   one
state   to   another,   the   transferee   state   has   full   control   over
the   prosecution   and   becomes   the   prosecuting   State.   It   is
the   Petitioner’s   contention   that   once   the   prosecuting   state
changes,   the   trial   can   be   completed   in   a   fair   and   just
manner.
18. During  the course of hearing, Mr. Patwalia clarified that it is not
necessary   to   transfer   the   trial   to   the   State   of   Assam   and   this   Court
may   consider   the   desirability   of   transferring   it   to   any   other
neighbouring States, like Orissa or Jharkhand. 
19. Opposing   the   transfer,   Mr.   Kapil   Sibal   and   Mr.   Neeraj   Kishan
Kaul, learned senior counsels on behalf of Respondent No. 1­ State of
West   Bengal   and   Mr.   V.   Giri,   learned   senior   counsel   on   behalf   of
1   Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh  (2010) 9 SCC 475.
2   K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka  (2015) 6 SCC 86.
Page |  12  

Respondent No.  2,  contended  that the  facts  as  revealed   do  not make
out a case for transfer of the trial outside the State of West Bengal. At
the outset, they have challenged the locus of the Petitioner to file this
transfer   petition,   contending   that   the   Petitioner   is   not   the
complainant   and   is   only   a   witness   in   the   trial.   They   have   made   the
following submissions:
(i) The Deceased’s wife did not approach the state police about
the   alleged   attack   on   her   in   the   Trial   Court   premises   on
02.03.2021   and   the   Petitioner’s   security   arrangement   was
never   withdrawn   by   the   State.   The   police   took   prompt
action   in   the   matter   of   abduction   of   witness   Imran   Ali   as
the accused persons & the victims were swiftly located and
chargesheet has been filed in the case;
(ii) The   veracity   of   the   media   reports   relied   upon   by   the
Petitioner   to   show   that   Respondent   No.   2   has   access   to
facilities,   such   as   smartphone,   headphones   etc.   are   not
based upon correct facts;
(iii) The   Public   Prosecutor   gave   detailed   reasons   in   his
withdrawal application before the Trial Court in compliance
with Section 321 of CrPC;
(iv) The   requirements  under   Section  406,  CrPC   are   not  met  in
this   case   as   no   reasonable   apprehension   that   justice   will
not be done, is made out. 
Page |  13  

(v) There   is   no   allegation   or   whisper   of   bias   in   the   State
Judiciary   as   is   evident   from   the   fact   that   the   accused
persons’ bail applications have constantly been rejected by
the   Trial  Court  and  such  rejection   has  been   upheld  in   the
High   Court.   The   High   Court   has   acted   as   a   robust
supervisory mechanism to oversee the trial proceedings and
check any lapses occurring therein;
(vi) There are no allegations of unfair investigation and the only
Trial Court order found fault with was the order passed by
the   Link   Judge   allowing   the   application   for   withdrawal   of
prosecution;
(vii) There   are   107   Prosecution   witnesses   in   the   trial   out   of
which   80   witnesses   reside   in   Purba   Medinipur   district
where the trial is going on. Till the trial was stayed by this
Court,   the   Trial   Court   had   examined   11   witnesses.   Most
witnesses   are   stated   to   be   Bengali   speaking.   In   light   of
these   circumstances,   it   is   stated   that   the   transfer   of   the
case to a court outside the State of West Bengal will cause
extreme   inconvenience   to   the   Prosecution   &   most
witnesses. The judgment in  Abdul Nazar Madani v. State
of   Tamil   Nadu 3
  wherein   this   Court   considered   the
convenience of the Prosecution, other accused persons, the
3   Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu   (2000) 6 SCC 204.
Page |  14  

witnesses and the larger interest of society while deciding a
transfer   petition,   has   been   pressed   into   aid.   Other   cases
have also similarly been cited 4
;
(viii) Reliance has been placed on  Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union
of   India 5
  wherein   this   Court   noted   that   the   power   under
Section   406,   CrPC   is   to   be   exercised   sparingly   and   that
transfer   should   be   allowed   only   when   there   is   a   well­
substantiated   apprehension   that   justice   will   not   be
dispensed   impartially.   Other   similar   decisions   have   also
been brought to our notice 6
;
(ix) Ashish Chandra v. Asha Kumari 7
  has been cited to refer
the observations of this Court that transfer of cases have a
demoralizing effect on trial courts.
(x) The   Deceased   was   and   the   Petitioner   is   a   politically
influential person and transfer of the proceedings is sought
to  a jurisdiction  where he will be  able to  exert his political
influence.   The   Deceased   himself   is   stated   to   have   had
multiple criminal cases pending against him;
4   Sri   Jayendra   Saraswathy   Swamigal   (II)   v.   State   of   T.N.   (2005)   8   SCC   771;   Harita   Sunil
Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi)   (2018) 6 SCC 358;   Swaati Nirkhi v. State (NCT of Delhi)   2021
SCC Online SC 202.
5   Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India  (2011) 1 SCC 307.
6   Gurcharan   Dass   Chadha   v.   State   of   Rajasthan   (1966)   2   SCR   678;   Amarinder   Singh   v.
Parkash Singh Badal  (2009) 6 SCC 260.
7   Ashish Chandra v. Asha Kumari,  (2012) 1 SCC 680
Page |  15  

(xi) There   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   witnesses   have
been   threatened.   Respondent   no.   2,   being   in   custody,
cannot exert any threat or pressure on the witnesses; 
(xii) The   Petitioner   has   delayed   the   trial   through   these
proceedings and the accused persons have been in custody
for over three years. As such, it is contended that prejudice
has   been   caused   to   the   accused   persons   and   they   shall
incur heavy expenses to defend themselves if the case were
to be transferred outside the State of West Bengal;
(xiii) To   ensure   a   fair   trial,   this   Court   may   transfer   the   case
anywhere   in   the   state   and   appoint   a   Public   Prosecutor
while protecting the accused persons and the complainant.
20. All   other   Respondents   have   supported   this   stance   and   made
similar averments.
C.  ANALYSIS
21.   We   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions   made   by   the
parties   and   perused   the   record.   Before   adverting   to   the   contentious
issue,   we   deem   it   appropriate   to   discuss   the   settled   principles   in
relation to the exercise of power to transfer cases under Section 406,
CrPC   as   well   as   the   preliminary   objection   raised   by   the   respondents
on the   locus standi   of the petitioner in seeking transfer of the subject
trial. 
Page |  16  

C.1.  LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONER
22.   Section 406(2) of the CrPC provides that the Supreme Court may
transfer   a   case   “only   on   the   application   of   the   Attorney­General   of
India or of a party interested”. 
23.  In the case of  K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police 8
, this
Court discussed the meaning of expression “a party interested” under
Section 406, CrPC and held as follows:
“The   words   “party   interested”   are   of   a   wide   import
and,   therefore,   they   have   to   be   given   a   wider
meaning.  If it  was  the intendment of the legislature
to   give   restricted   meaning   then   it   would   have   used
words   to   the   effect   “party   to   the   proceedings”.   In
this   behalf   the   wording   of   Article   139­A   of   the
Constitution of India may be looked at. Under Article
139­A   the   transfer   can   be   if   “the   Supreme   Court   is
satisfied   on   its   own   motion   or   on   an   application
made by the Attorney General of India or by a   party
to   any   such   case ”.   (emphasis   supplied)   Also   if   the
provisions   of   Chapter   XXIX   of   the   Criminal
Procedure   Code   are   looked   at,   it   is   seen   that   when
the legislature intended a “party to the proceedings”
to   have   a   right   of   appeal   it   specifically   so   stated.
The legislature, therefore, keeping in view the larger
public interest involved in a criminal justice system,
purposely   used   words   of   a   wider   import   in   Section
406.   Also,   it   is   a   well­settled   principle   of   law   that
statutes must be interpreted to advance the cause of
statute and not to defeat it.”
24. Considering   this   apt   and   expansive   interpretation   of   phrase
‘party   interested’   under   Section  406(2)  of  the   CrPC,   we   hold  that  the
Petitioner, being the real brother of the Deceased, is vitally interested
8   K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police  (2004) 3 SCC 767.
Page |  17  

in   a   fair   trial   so   that   the   Deceased   and   his   family   gets   justice.   The
Respondents’   challenge   to   the   locus   standi   of   the   Petitioner   is   thus
rejected. 
C.2.  GROUNDS FOR TRANSFER
25.  Coming to the second limb of the contentions raised on behalf of
the parties, we may firstly notice some of the well­defined contours in
relation   thereto.   It   has   by   now   been   well   established   that   a   well­
founded   apprehension   that   justice   will   not   be   done   is   a   prerequisite
for transfer of the case. Tracing the  power of transfer of a case, we are
reminded of Lord Hewart’s dictum in  Rex v. Sussex Justices 9
  stating
that “ It  is  not  merely  of some importance but  is  of  fundamental
importance   that   justice   should   not   only   be   done,   but   should
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ”.
26.  The  right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
the  Constitution   of  India 10
  and  its  importance  cannot  be emphasised
enough.   However,   to   obtain   the   transfer   of   a   case,   the   Petitioner   is
required to show circumstances from which it can be inferred that he
entertains   a   reasonable   apprehension.   This   apprehension   cannot   be
imaginary and cannot be a mere allegation. 11
9   Rex v. Sussex Justices  [1924] 1 KB 256.
10   Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat   (2006) 3 SCC 374;   Maneka Sanjay Gandhi
v. Rani Jethmalani   (1979) 4 SCC 167;   R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala   (2000) 7 SCC
129.
11   Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal  (2009) 6 SCC 260.
Page |  18  

27. The  power of transfer under Section 406, CrPC is to be exercised
sparingly   and   only   when   justice   is   apparently   in   grave   peril.   This
Court has allowed transfers only in exceptional cases considering the
fact   that   transfers   may   cast   unnecessary   aspersions   on   the   State
Judiciary   and   the   prosecution   agency. 12
  Thus,   over   the   years,   this
Court   has   laid   down   certain   guidelines   and   situations   wherein   such
power can be justiciably invoked. 
28. In   Amarinder   Singh   v.   Parkash   Singh   Badal 13
,   this   Court
observed as follows:
“19.   Assurance   of   a   fair   trial   is   the   first
imperative   of   the   dispensation   of   justice.   The
purpose  of the  criminal trial is to dispense fair and
impartial   justice   uninfluenced   by   extraneous
considerations.   When   it   is   shown   that   the   public
confidence   in   the   fairness   of   a   trial   would   be
seriously   undermined,   the   aggrieved   party   can   seek
the transfer of a case within the State under Section
407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406
CrPC.”
29.   In   Nahar   Singh  Yadav  v. Union of India 14
  after analysing the
case­law,   this   Court   enumerated   the   basic   principles   of   the   power   of
transfer under Section 406, CrPC as follows:
“29.   Thus,   although   no   rigid   and   inflexible   rule   or
test   could   be   laid   down   to   decide   whether   or   not
power   under   Section   406   CrPC   should   be   exercised,
it is manifest from a bare reading of sub­sections (2)
12   Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India   (2011) 1 SCC 307;   Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla
[Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2020, 22 February 2023].
13   Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal  (2009) 6 SCC 260.
14   Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India  (2011) 1 SCC 307.
Page |  19  

and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the
decisions   of   this   Court   that   an   order   of   transfer   of
trial   is   not   to   be   passed   as   a   matter   of   routine   or
merely   because   an   interested   party   has   expressed
some   apprehension   about   the   proper   conduct   of   a
trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and
in   exceptional   situations,   where   it   becomes
necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial.
Some   of   the   broad   factors   which   could   be   kept   in
mind   while   considering   an   application   for   transfer
of the trial are:
(i)   when   it   appears   that   the   State   machinery   or
prosecution   is   acting   hand   in   glove   with   the
accused,   and   there   is   likelihood   of   miscarriage   of
justice   due   to   the   lackadaisical   attitude   of   the
prosecution;
(ii)   when   there   is   material   to   show   that   the
accused   may   influence   the   prosecution   witnesses   or
cause physical harm to the complainant;
(iii)   comparative   inconvenience   and   hardships
likely   to   be   caused   to   the   accused,   the
complainant/the   prosecution   and   the   witnesses,
besides   the   burden   to   be   borne   by   the   State
exchequer   in   making   payment   of   travelling   and
other   expenses   of   the   official   and   non­official
witnesses;
(iv)   a   communally   surcharged   atmosphere,
indicating   some   proof   of   inability   of   holding   fair
and impartial trial because of the accusations made
and   the   nature   of   the   crime   committed   by   the
accused; and
(v)   existence   of   some   material   from   which   it   can
be   inferred   that   some   persons   are   so   hostile   that
they   are   interfering   or   are   likely   to   interfere   either
directly or indirectly with the course of justice.”
30. In  R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala 15
,  this  Court  noted
the   crucial   separation   of   powers   between   the   judiciary   and   the
15   R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala  (2000) 7 SCC 129.
Page |  20  

executive and held that “ Judges are not influenced in any manner
either   by   the   propaganda   or   adverse   publicity.   Cases   are
decided on the basis of the evidence available on record and the
law applicable . ”
31. The  convenience  of parties and witnesses as well as the language
spoken   by   them   are   also   relevant   factors   when   deciding   a   transfer
petition, as has been noted by this Court in a catena of judgments. 16
 
32. In  some  of  the  recent decisions  including  in   Neelam   Pandey   v.
Rahul   Shukla 17
,   this   Court   has   viewed   that   transfer   of   a   criminal
case   from   one   state   to   another   implicitly   reflects   upon   credibility   of
not only the State Judiciary but also of the prosecution agency.
33. Adverting   to   the   facts   of   the   case   in   hand   in   light   of   the
principles  enunciated  by  this  Court  from  time  to  time,  it  is  true  that
the State of West Bengal  has taken a complete u­turn  with a view to
help the main accused, namely, Respondent No. 2 and it went to the
extent   of   resorting   to   its   powers   under   Section   321   of   CrPC   to
withdraw the prosecution itself. A plain reading of Section 321, CrPC
leaves   no   room   to   doubt   that   it  is   the   Public   Prosecutor   in­charge   of
the case who has to apply his mind independently and impartially to
form   a   view   for   withdrawal   from   the   prosecution   with   the   consent   of
16   Abdul   Nazar   Madani   v.   State   of   TN   (2000)   6   SCC   204;   Sri   Jayendra   Saraswathy
Swamigal   (II)   v.   State   of   T.N.   (2005)   8   SCC   771;   Harita   Sunil   Parab   v.   State   (NCT   of   Delhi)
(2018) 6 SCC 358.
17   Neelam   Pandey   v.   Rahul   Shukla   [Transfer   Petition   (Criminal)   No.   298   of   2020,   22
February 2023].
Page |  21  

the court. The procedure followed in the case in hand was completely
alien to the scheme of Section 321, CrPC as the decision to withdraw
prosecution   was   taken   at   the   level   of   the   State   Government   and   the
Public Prosecutor was merely asked to act upon the said Government
notification.    The   Link   Judge  also   showed   tearing   hurry  in   accepting
the   application   of   the   Public   Prosecutor   and   permitting   withdrawal
from   prosecution   even   before   the   date   when   the   case   was   listed   for
prosecution evidence.
34. However, none of these patent illegalities were allowed to sustain
as   a   result   of   the   pro­active   exercise   of   appellate/revisional/writ
jurisdiction   by   the   High   Court.   Not  only   was   the   State   Government’s
notification   set aside,  the  order  passed  by  the  Link  Judge  permitting
such  withdrawal  was  also annulled  by  the High  Court. It is  a  matter
of record that the learned Trial Judge has repeatedly declined bail to
Respondent   No.   2   and   even   the   High   Court   rejected   his   prayer   for
enlargement   on   bail.   In   this   factual   scenario,   the   question   arises
whether   it   is   essential   to   transfer   the   trial   outside   the   State   of   West
Bengal   or   whether   the   ends   of   justice   can   be   adequately   met   by
issuing alternative appropriate directions?
D. CONCLUSIONS
35.  Having   given   our   thoughtful   consideration   to   this   issue,   it
appears   to   us   that   there   is   no   legal   necessity   to   transfer   the   trial
Page |  22  

outside   the   State   of   West   Bengal   and   the   apprehensions   of   the
Petitioner,   some   of   which   are   indeed   genuine,   can   be   effectively
redressed by issuing appropriate directions. We say so for the reason
that more than 90 witnesses, most of whom are Bengali speaking, are
yet   to   be   examined.   The   transfer   of   trial   to   any   other   neighbouring
state   will   cause   serious   impediment   in   the   deposition   of   those
witnesses and some of them might be reluctant to travel to a far away
place   and,   thus,   the   case   of   the   Prosecution   will   be   severely
prejudiced.   So   long   as   the   High   Court   and   District   Judiciary   are
ensuring   the   fairness   in   trial   proceedings   within   their   jurisdictional
framework,  we  are  not  inclined  to   accept  that the  victim’s  family  will
not get fair justice, if the trial is held in the State of West Bengal. 
36. Taking   into   consideration   all   the   facts   and   circumstances,   we
deem   it   appropriate   to   dispose   of   this   transfer   petition   in   following
terms:­
(i) Criminal Trial bearing ST No. 1 (03) of 2020 arising out of FIR
No.   495/2019   registered   at   Police   Station   Panskura,   District
Purba  Medinipur   is   ordered   to   be   transferred   from   the   Court
of   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   3 rd
  Court,   Tamluk,   Purba
Medinipur,   West   Bengal   to   the   Court   of   Chief   Judge,   City
Sessions Court at Calcutta.
(ii) The trial shall be conducted by the Chief Judge, City Sessions
Court   and   he   shall   not   entrust   the   case   to   any   other
Page |  23  

Additional Sessions Judge.
(iii) The Chief Judge, City Sessions Court  shall endeavour to take
up   the   trial   on   a   weekly   basis   and   shall   make   an   effort   to
conclude the same within a period of six months.
(iv) The   State   of   West   Bengal   is   directed   to   appoint   a   Special
Public   Prosecutor   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Chief
Judge,   City   Sessions   Court,   Calcutta   with   the   prior   approval
of the High Court. This exercise shall be completed within two
weeks.
(v) The   wife   of   the   Deceased,   the   Petitioner   and   other   crucial
prosecution   witnesses   shall   be   provided   adequate   security.
The State of West Bengal is directed to ensure that no harm is
caused to the life and liberty of the witnesses and no direct or
indirect   attempt   is   made   by   Respondent   No.   2   or   his   co­
accused   persons   or   anyone   on   their   behalf   to   influence,
frighten or threaten the witnesses. 
(vi) The   De­facto   Complainant   who   is   also   stated   to   be   the   eye­
witness   and   has   allegedly   resiled   from   his   version   recorded
during   the   examination­in­chief,   shall   be   subjected   to   cross­
examination   by   the   Special   Public   Prosecutor,   for   which   the
advocate engaged by the Petitioner may provide assistance to
the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 
Page |  24  

(vii) Respondent   No.   2   or   any   other   accused   who   are   in   custody
shall  be transferred forthwith  to  the Central  Jail  at Calcutta.
(viii) Respondent No. 2, having regard to his criminal antecedents,
as   well   as   other   accused   who   are   in   custody,   shall   not   be
enlarged on bail till the conclusion of trial save and except by
the High Court.
(ix) The   Learned   Portfolio   Judge   of   the   Calcutta   High   Court   is
requested   to   regularly   monitor   and   supervise   the   trial
proceedings in terms of the directions issued hereinabove. 
37. This transfer petition is hence, disposed of in above stated terms.
38. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
………………………………..J.
[SURYA KANT]
………………………………..J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 17, 2023.
Page |  25