Summary
The Supreme Court held Uttar Pradesh to be a party interested entitled to apply under section 406 CrPC, but refused transfer of the Punjab case because it remained under investigation. Separately exercising Article 142, it directed transfer of Mukhtar Ansari’s custody from Roopnagar Jail to Banda within two weeks to facilitate pending trials, with necessary medical care. It did not decide Article 32 maintainability or find the alleged conspiracy proved.
Issues
- Whether a State is a party interested under section 406 CrPC and whether that provision permits transfer at the investigation stage.
- Whether Article 142 justified interstate transfer of the undertrial’s custody to facilitate pending trials.
Provisions considered
- Section 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The State qualified as a party interested, but the provision did not authorise the requested transfer of an investigation. (¶¶ 17-21, 28(i)-(ii))
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe circumstances justified transferring custody to facilitate criminal proceedings while ensuring medical care. (¶ 25-28)
- Section 3(1), Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950The specified executive-transfer categories did not cover this undertrial; that absence did not preclude the Court’s Article 142 direction. (¶ 25-26)
Held
- Party interested is wider than party to the proceedings. As the prosecuting agency serving the public in criminal administration, the State was within section 406(2). It was unnecessary to decide whether the petition was maintainable under Article 32. (¶ 18-19)
- Section 406 permits transfer of cases and appeals, not investigations between police stations merely because an FIR or remand report reaches a court. The Punjab investigation had no final report, so the requested case-transfer relief failed. (¶¶ 20-21, 28(ii))
- Repeated refusal of custody on the cited medical grounds impeded proceedings in Uttar Pradesh. Video-conference permissions did not themselves defeat the request. On these facts, Article 142 justified interstate custody transfer; the Court expressly refrained from finding the alleged conspiracy. (¶ 25-27)
- The prisoner was to be handed over within two weeks for lodging at Banda. The Special Court could direct a further shift within Uttar Pradesh if needed. Jail authorities had to provide necessary medical facilities and any required specialty treatment under the Jail Manual. (¶ 28(iii)-(v))
Result
Writ petition partly allowed: custody transfer ordered under Article 142, but transfer of the Punjab case refused. Connected Transfer Petitions (Criminal) 104–114 of 2021 dismissed.