Transfer of criminal cases for reasonable apprehension of bias upheld where trial fairness and public confidence were undermined.

A criminal case may be transferred when an objective assessment of the surrounding circumstances shows a reasonable apprehension that the trial will not be fair and impartial, and that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined. The Court held that pending writ proceedings did not bar transfer petitions, and that omission to disclose parallel proceedings was not fatal where the wider issue was whether justice was being subverted. It also treated the petitioner as a sufficient "party interested" and accepted that recalled witnesses, inaction on hostile-witness and perjury steps, and dispensation of personal appearance created a fair apprehension of bias. The cases were ordered transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitions for transfer were maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and not liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of parallel proceedings or for want of locus standi; (ii) Whether the circumstances disclosed a reasonable apprehension that the trial would not be fair and impartial, justifying transfer of the criminal cases to another State.

Issue (i): Whether the petitions for transfer were maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and not liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of parallel proceedings or for want of locus standi.

Analysis: The existence of writ proceedings before the High Court did not bar the transfer petitions, because the High Court proceedings and the transfer petitions arose under distinct jurisdictions and sought different reliefs. Although disclosure ought to have been made, the omission was not treated as fatal in the face of the larger question whether the course of justice was being subverted. The expression "party interested" in the transfer provision was given a wide meaning, and the petitioner, as a political opponent raising concerns about administration of criminal justice, was held to have sufficient interest.

Conclusion: The petitions were held maintainable and the objection based on suppression and locus standi was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the circumstances disclosed a reasonable apprehension that the trial would not be fair and impartial, justifying transfer of the criminal cases to another State.

Analysis: The recalled witnesses, the failure to object to recall, the absence of steps under the hostile-witness procedure, the lack of action on alleged perjury, and the dispensation of personal appearance under Section 313 created an objective apprehension that the prosecution was not being conducted fairly. The governing test was whether the apprehension of bias was reasonable and whether public confidence in the fairness of the trial was undermined. On the facts, the Court found that the process of justice was being subverted and that transfer was necessary to secure a fair trial and preserve confidence in the criminal justice system.

Conclusion: A reasonable apprehension of bias and failure of justice was established, and transfer of the cases was justified.

Final Conclusion: The criminal cases were ordered to be transferred out of Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, with directions for constitution of a special court, appointment of a special judge and public prosecutor, and continuation of the trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal case is liable to be transferred when the surrounding circumstances create a reasonable apprehension, objectively assessed, that the trial will not be fair and impartial and that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined.

---