New Delhi, July 22 A Delhi court on Saturday reserved its order in the transfer petition filed by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, wherein he had prayed the court to transfer the matter pertaining to Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s case from the court of Special Judge Geetanjali Goel to any other court.
The case stems from the predicate offences in the infamous “Two leaves matter” wherein Chandrashekhar has been alleged to have impersonated an IAS officer, who allegedly promised to secure the symbol for the Sasikala faction in return for a substantial amount.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court Anju Bajaj Chandna was hearing Chandrashekhar's transfer petition, which was a result of a handwritten application moved by him enlisting the instances of bias against him by the court of Special Judge Geetanjali Goel.
Advocate Anant Malik appearing for Chandrashekhar, drew the attention of the court to the fact that the predicate offence matter has already been stayed by the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court.
Malik highlighted instances wherein Chandrashekhar has been threatened by T. T. V. Dhinakaran and his allies. One such incident being from April 2022, when he was confronted with him, wherein the latter warned him that Chandrashekhar should refrain from naming him in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) matter and that he manages the whole system and hence would make sure that charges will be framed against him.
The counsel further indicated at the irony, as the ED had also filed a transfer petition in Satyender Kumar Jain’s matter from the court of Special Judge Geetanjali Goel on similar apprehensions.
It was also argued that during the course of chief examination of the witnesses, the judge was tutoring the witnesses to support the agency’s case, which is something very strange and defeats the right of the accused to get a fair trial.
Furthermore, it was also pointed out that Satyender Jain has threatened Chandrashekhar that he was a family friend of Goel and will ensure that he does not get a fair trial.
In view of the fact, that the petitioner (Chandrashekhar) is a whistleblower and prime witness against Satyender Jain and Arvind Kejriwal, there is all the more reason for probable bias against him.
The counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed in Directorate of Enforcement v. Satyender Kumar Jain & Ors. wherein it has been held:
“In my considered opinion, the Ld. Judge is a very upright officer, however, all the circumstances taken together are sufficient to raise, a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Petitioner as a common man, not of any actual bias but of a probable bias and as such, the application is liable to be dismissed.”
Malik said that the basic principle is that justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done and therefore not the actual bias but the probability of bias based on facts and circumstances must be seen.
In response to the submissions, the ED contended that the petition was a delaying tactic by the petitioner.
The agency further stated that the name of one witness has only come up now in which the petitioner has stated that the said witness was tutored by Goel.
The agency further apprised the court that at this stage, 15 witnesses have already been examined and only four are left, therefore the instant petition was to simply delay the proceedings in the said matter.
However, Malik reminded the court that the petitioner has only approached the court after several instances of bias which have taken place in continuity and not as an isolated incident.
The counsel further stated that if the agency is pointing out at the petitioner’s involvement in big scams, it should also see from the other lens that the petitioner has succeeded in a majority of his applications and has even been granted bail and parole previously.
It was further argued that the bias has to be seen from the eyes of the litigants and if there are instances which will cloud the judgement of the litigant towards the fairness of the court, then the transfer should be allowed. It is not that the applicant has to establish absolute bias, even if a case of probable bias is set up then also the transfer can be allowed.
The court commented that it is the duty of the bench to see every matter with a neutral eye and thus after noting down the contentions of the parties reserved the matter for orders August 9.
Advocates Anant Malik along with Vediccaa Ramdanee, Kanika Kapoor and Snigdha Singhi appeared for the applicant Chandrashekhar.
Advocate Md. Faraz appeared on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor