Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1302 (ALL)

Tariq Qazmi v. State of U. P

2014-04-23

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent. 2. This transfer application has been moved by the applicant for transfer of ST No.114 of 2008 (State v. Khalid Mujahid and others), under Sections 302, 307, 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Exclusive Substance Act pending in Sessions Division, Faizabad to Sessions Division, Lucknow for trial. 3. The ground taken is that the applicant has wrongly been impleaded in the case and he has lost his hope that he will be given fair and impartial trial in District Faizabad. He has also lost his hope that any advocate would be in a position to appear freely on his behalf in this case and defend him by producing defence. 4. This Court has, vide order dated 25.3.2014, called for the report from the Sessions Judge as to whether in this case Bar Association has taken any action against counsels, who had put in their appearance on behalf of the applicant. In compliance of that order Sessions Judge has sent report including the letter of President, Bar Association, Faizabad. The letter of the Bar Association is on record in which the President, Bar Association, Faizabad has informed the District Judge that they have unanimously passed a resolution on 7.5.2008 that the association will not take any step to obstruct the proceeding in the court and they will not obstruct the counsel for defence and they will also not make any move, which may obstruct the course of justice. It was further submitted that till now 43 witnesses have been examined without any interference from the association. Shri Jamal Ahmad, Advocate regularly comes to court and he has never been bothered by any member of the Bar. 5. The report of the trial court also reveals that Sri Jamal Ahmad and Mohd. Shoaib, Advocates were appearing on behalf of the applicant and was defending the case from 16.11.2013 on which application was moved for summoning the witness. That application was allowed and witness was summoned. The statement was recorded on 13.12.2013 and his evidence is continuing. 5. The report of the trial court also reveals that Sri Jamal Ahmad and Mohd. Shoaib, Advocates were appearing on behalf of the applicant and was defending the case from 16.11.2013 on which application was moved for summoning the witness. That application was allowed and witness was summoned. The statement was recorded on 13.12.2013 and his evidence is continuing. Report further mentions that since 30.11.2013 learned counsel for the accused are not putting in their appearance in this case, perhaps with the connivance of accused and with deliberate intent to create ground for moving transfer application before the Hon'ble Court. Report of the District Judge along with report of the Bar Association clearly indicates that Bar Association, Faizabad is not precluding the counsel for the defence to appear before the court and they are also not obstructing the course of justice for trial. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the apprehension of the applicant is baseless and without any ground. The transfer application is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed.