Summary
The Supreme Court rejected requests to transfer criminal cases from Delhi/Ghaziabad and Ratlam to Mumbai. A reasonable, factually supported apprehension of unfairness was required; the asserted safety concern was too nebulous on this record. The petitioner’s professional and travel convenience did not outweigh the interests of the prosecution, accused, witnesses and society. Investigation in the two FIRs had already ended in charge-sheets, and any investigation or protection grievance could be raised before the appropriate court or authorities.
Issues
- Whether the asserted apprehensions and personal inconvenience justified interstate transfer.
- How witness location, completed investigation and available remedies affected the requests.
Held
- Transfer depends on the facts and a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done, rather than conjecture or mere assertion. The petitioner’s stated apprehension of harm was too nebulous here, and she had long travelled to Delhi for professional work. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- Convenience includes the prosecution, accused and witnesses and the larger societal interest, rather than the applicant alone. Of forty witnesses listed in one charge-sheet, only the petitioner was from Mumbai; transferring the cases would impede trial and increase witness travel burdens. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Investigation in both FIRs had been completed and separate charge-sheets filed. Any challenge to investigation or request for safety measures was open through appropriate applications, to be considered independently according to law. The Court did not decide the underlying accusations. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The request to transfer the Railways Act case from Ratlam rested on similar convenience grounds and was also rejected in light of the same reasoning. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
All three transfer petitions rejected; investigation-related and protection applications, if made before the appropriate authorities, remain for independent consideration under law.