Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Deep Rattan & Anr. v. State of Punjab. - CRM-28668-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3770 (6 July 2006)

Crl.M. No.28668 of 2006

Deep Rattan & Anr. vs. State of Punjab.

* * *

Present: Mr. P.M. Anand, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Baath, AAG, Punjab.

* * *

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. is for transfer of the case FIR No.646 dated 8.11.2005 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, from the Court of Sh. K.C. Puri, Sessions Judge, Bathinda to some other District, on the plea that as the persons murdered were parents of an Advocate, practising at Bathinda the petitioners apprehend that they would not get justice.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that on every date in the trial, a large number of Advocates assemble inside the Court and try to pressurise the Presiding Officer. The petitioners, therefore, apprehend that they would not get justice.

Counsel for the complainant-Reema Garg, whose parents were murdered, submits that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are false. The Bar has neither passed any resolution nor has any pressure been brought to bear upon the Presiding Officer. It is further argued that the bar passed a resolution against the police when it tried to hush up the case. It is prayed that as no cogent ground for transfer exists, the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The apprehension expressed, that members of the Bar are likely to exert pressure upon the Presiding Officer in my opinion, in the absence of any overt attempt by the Bar does not merit acceptance.

Presiding Officers by the very nature of the duty they perform, are not susceptible to such like pressure. Even otherwise the allegations that members of the Bar enter the Court room to exert pressure upon the Presiding Officer have been denied.

In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is dismissed.

July 7, 2006 (RAJIVE BHALLA)



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.