- (1.) Pitted against the might of a sitting MLA, having allegedly murdered his son, but still hoping for a fair trial, the petitioners have moved his court for transfer of their case from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh to any other court in District Ajmer. For this purpose the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17-09-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge had dismissed their transfer petition.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had allegedly killed Bhawar Singh, son of the sitting MLA from Kishangarh, Nathuram. For the alleged crime, they are facing a trial for offences under sections 364, 302, 120-B IPC and under sections 3/25, 5/25, and 27 of the Arms Act before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh. The said case has generated much heat and dust in the area. According to the petitioners, when they attend the trial, they find a mob of 100-200 people waiting for them. The atmosphere is so surcharged that the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 found it extremely difficult to hire the services of advocates from Kishangarh for defending themselves. Therefore, they had no other option but to hire the services of lawyers from Ajmer. Moreover, on 23-6-2011, the members of the complainant party had allegedly attacked the brother of accused Kailash Thakan, namely Mukesh Thakan. Regarding this incident, a FIR was registered at Police Station Rupangarh, district Ajmer, for offences under sections 323, 341, 379/34 IPC. Since the petitioners felt insecure, since they found it difficult to hire the services of good lawyers, since they feared that they may not be able to get a fair trial at Kishangarh, they moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Ajmer for transferring their case from Kishangarh to any court in District Ajmer. Although the learned Judge dismissed the said application vide order dated 7-7-2011, he did direct the police to ensure the petitioners' safety.
(3.) Subsequently, the charges were framed against the petitioners and against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by the learned trial court. Since the accused persons had hired the services of lawyers from Ajmer, it was agreed between the prosecution and the defence, with the consent of the learned trial court, that the testimonies would be recorded after 12 o'clock in the afternoon. However, on 26-8-2011, when the first prosecution witness, namely Bhag Chand Jat was produced, according to the petitioners the testimony was recorded behind their backs at 12:10 AM. When their counsel reached the court at 12:40 PM, they realized, to their shock and dismay that the examination-in-chief was over. Moreover, the Special Public Prosecutor had asked leading questions from the witness. Therefore, different counsel for different accused persons moved three different applications for transfer of the case from the trial court to any other court. Since the testimony of Bhag Chand Jat (P. W. 1) had been recorded despite the protest of the accused persons, since leading questions were permitted to be asked, the petitioners pleaded that they had no confidence that the trail would be a fair one. Interestingly, the learned trial court also recommended that the case be transferred out of its court to any other court. Meanwhile, the witnesses, who had come to attend the trial, also moved applications for their own protection as they claimed that they were being threatened by the accused persons and their henchmen. Subsequently, the petitioners also moved an application for transferring their case before the learned Sessions Judge. However, vide order dated 17-9-2011, the learned judge dismissed the application. Hence, this transfer petition before this court.;