Manthar Ali Lashari vs Engineer @ Jajo & Others
This matter concerns a Criminal Transfer Application filed by the complainant seeking to transfer a Sessions case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, to another jurisdiction, citing threats to life and liberty due to the presence of proclaimed absconders from the same area. The core legal question was whether the apprehension of danger and the necessity of travel between Mehrabpur and Kandiaro constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal trial. The Court held that the mere distance of 40 kilometers and associated travel concerns do not constitute valid legal grounds for transferring a criminal case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the complainant has adequate legal remedies available to ensure safety during court proceedings. The ratio of the decision is that a transfer application cannot be granted solely on the basis of travel distance or generalized fears when statutory protections are available. The key principle laid down is that the Witness Protection Act, 2013, provides the appropriate mechanism for addressing security concerns during trial, rather than the transfer of the proceedings themselves.
- Does the distance between the complainant's residence and the trial court constitute a valid ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Can a criminal case be transferred solely on the basis of generalized fears of safety when statutory protection mechanisms are available?
- Is the Witness Protection Act, 2013, the appropriate remedy for a complainant fearing for their safety during trial proceedings?
- Witness Protection Act, 2013
JAWAD AKBAR SARWANA, J.: The counsel for the applicant/complainant has submitted that on account of threat to life and liberty to the applicant/complainant, and given the background of the crime involved in the Sessions Case No.946 of 2024 currently pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro (Re: Stus Engineer & Others) arising from Crime No.175/2024 of PS Kandiaro, involving five persons being severely injured, three accused in custody in Prison and six accused having been declared as proclaimed absconders, the applicant/complainant filed with the District Sessions Court at Naushahro Feroze Criminal Transfer Application No.64/2024 for transfer of the Session Case from Kandiaro to any other Court. The applicant/complainant counsel submitted that these accused persons, who are also absconders, are from Kandiaro City, and he fears for his life and liberty as and when the appellant/complainant and the witnesses proceed to Kandiaro to attend hearings in the trial. Yet the District Sessions Court at Naushahro Feroze dismissed the Applicant/Complainant's Transfer Application vide Order dated 23.12.2024, hence this application.
2. Counsel for respondents/accused contends that, in fact, the complainant, his witnesses and accused persons are from the same Taluka. He relies on his own application filed before this Court in support of the contention. When this bench queried Counsel if his argument that there is no need for transfer of the case as both complainant and the accused reside in the same area, he could not substantiate the same by any document available on file, including documents filed with the bail application, which is being listed with this Crl. Transfer Application. He candidly responded in the negative.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that the impugned order dismissing the transfer application has referred to the Witnesses Protection Act, 2013, which the applicant may invoke, such that as and when, the complainant and the witnesses attend hearings they will be offered police protection, travelling between Mehrabpur and Kandiaro, involving a distance of about 40 KMs. Therefore, given the 2013 Act, there is no need to transfer the Sessions case from Kandiaro to any other Court, in particular, as evidence has yet to start and the trial is ripe for evidence.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and DPG for the State and perused the material available on record.
5. The Counsel for the Appellant/complainant has put much emphasis on the fact that the Applicant/complainant and the witnesses have to attend hearings involving travel between Mehrabpur and Kandiaro, involving a distance of about 40 KMs. Although this alleged deterrence of distance is not pleaded in the Transfer Application, it cannot be a ground for transfer of the case.
Indeed, to this end, the Applicant/Complainant has also not articulated anywhere that the distance of 40 KMs translates into increased travel and transport costs and expenses. But then this is no such ground for transfer. The Applicant/Complainant is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the Witness Protection Act, 2013, to safeguard his passage during trial proceedings. Accordingly, in the circumstances, this bench does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024. As such, the Crl. Transfer Application No. S-14 of 2025 is dismissed.
6. The bail Application No. S-74 of 2025 is adjourned to 11.08.2025 for hearing.
Office is directed to place a signed copy of this order in captioned connected matter.