The accused claimed the absence of a "proper, fair and effective opportunity" to represent himself, contending that the transfer of the case was essential to ensure the ends of justice were met
The order found no concrete evidence on record to substantiate the claims of non-adherence to legal procedures or that the magisterial court was conducting the trial in a biased manner. Representational pic
A Delhi court has dismissed a man's plea seeking the transfer of a murder case against him to any other court, based on allegations of bias against the magisterial court.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Madhu Jain was presiding over the plea which had been filed by a man named Ankit. The accused is currently facing trial for various offences, including murder, stemming from a first information report (FIR) registered by the Tilak Nagar Police, reported PTI.
The accused claimed the absence of a "proper, fair and effective opportunity" to represent himself, contending that the transfer of the case was essential to ensure the ends of justice were met.
However, on June 5, the court stated, "The allegations made in the complaint of denial of fair opportunity to defend, are not directly relevant to determine whether a case should be transferred or not as no description of any particular incident with date, time and manner has been narrated, which makes the allegations bald and vague."
Underlining that the primary concern of a transfer plea was to ensure the case was adjudicated fairly, the court noted that the charge sheet in the murder case was yet to be filed. It further explained that once Delhi Police submits its final report, the magistrate would then commit the matter to a sessions court.
"The petitioner has alleged that the trial court exhibited bias and unfair treatment, including depriving fair opportunity of hearing and making adverse remarks against the defence counsel. The accused has also contended that the actions of the presiding officer demonstrated a pre-set mindset by the trial court," the court's order detailed.
However, the order found no concrete evidence on record to substantiate the claims of non-adherence to legal procedures or that the magisterial court was conducting the trial in a biased manner.
"The non-disclosure of time, dates and specific instances and nature of (the allegations in) the transfer application indicates that it has been intentionally filed not to address genuine concerns but to create procedural obstacles and and delay the trial. Consequently, these actions reinforce the impression that the applicant's primary objective is to delay the trial rather than to substantively challenge the proceedings."
In dismissing the plea, the court concluded that the ongoing trial was proceeding in line with the established legal procedure, with no indication of undue bias or procedural irregularity on the part of the magistrate.
(With inputs from PTI)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
