ASHA RANJAN versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 15-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 22 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 1 S.C.R. 945 
ASHA RANJAN 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 132of2016) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2017 
(DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: 
Arts. 32, 142 and 144 - Power under - Issuance of direction 
to transfer accused from one State to another - Brutal murder of 
petitioner's husband (senior reporter) by group of persons. 
respondent no. 3 and 4 and other accused persons - Third 
respondent, a dreaded criminal-cum-politician. declared history-
sheeter type 'A' (who is beyond reform) - Till today booked in 75 
cases, out of which convicted in JO cases and facing trial in 45 
cases - One such case relates to murder of the third son of the 
petitioner and other 11~10 are of atte111pt to 111urder ~ Jt'rit petition by 
petitioner seeking transfer of third respondent from Siwan Jail to 
Tihar Jail - Held: Section 3 doe5 not create impediment on the part 
of the court to pass an order of transfer of on accused or a convict 
fiwn one jail in o State to another prison in another State because 
it creates a bar on the exercise of power on the executive only -
Court in exercise of power u!Art. 142 cannot curtail fundamental 
rights of the citizens conferred under the Constitution and pass 
orders in violation of substantive provisions, yet when a case of the 
instant nature arises, it may issue appropriate directions so that 
criminal trial is conducted in accordance with law - It is the 
obligation and duty of this Court to ensure free and fair trial -
Thus, State of Bihar directed to transfer the third respondent from 
Siwan Jail, District Siwan to Tihcr Jail, Delhi, ofter giving prior 
intimation for his transfer in Delhi - Pending trials would be 
conducted by video conferenc;nr: - transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 
- s.3. 
Art. 21 - Fair trial - Concepl a/-Held: Is facet of Art. 21 -
Right to fair trial is not singularly absolute, os perceived, from the 
perspective of the accused - It tokes in its ambit and sweep the 
945 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
946 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
right of victim(s) and society at large - These factors would 
collectively allude and constitute Rule of Law-free and fair trial -
When there is intra-conflict-with the interest of victim or collective/ 
interest of society in respect of the same fundamental right, it is the 
obligation of the constitutional courts to weigh the balance in certain 
circumstances, interest of the society as a whole, when it would 
promote and instill Rule of Law - Fair trial is not what the accused 
wants in the name of fair trial - Fair trial must soothe the ultimate 
;ustice, sought individually, but is subservient and would not prevail 
when fair trial requires transfer of criminal proceedings. 
Disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.147 of 2016 and 
partly disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 132 of 2016, the 
Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a stndied analysis of the concept of fair 
trial as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, it is noticeable 
that in its ambit and sweep it covers interest of the accused, 
prosecution and the victim. The victim, may be a singular person, 
who has suffered, but the injury suffered by singular is likely to 
affect the community interest. Therefore, the collective under 
certain circumstances and in certain cases, assume the position 
of the victim. They may not be entitled to compensation as 
conceived under section 357 A CrPC but their anxiety and concern 
of the crime and desire to prevent such occurrences and that the 
perpetrator, if guilty, should be punished, is a facet of Rule of 
Law. And that has to be accepted and ultimately protected. [Para 
44] [982-C-E] 
1.2 The right under Article 21 is not. absolute. It can be 
curtailed in accordance with law. The curtail.ment of the right is 
permissible by following due procedure which can withstand the 
test of reasonableness. The submission that if the accused is 
transferred from jail in Siwan to any other jail outside the State of 
Bihar, his right to fair trial would br smothered and there will be 
an inscription of an obituary of fair trial and refutation of th6 said 
proponement, that the accused neither has monopoly over the 
process nor does he has any exclusively absolute right, requires 
a balanced resolution. The opposite arguments are both 
predicated on the precept of fair trial and the said scale would 
ASHA RANJAN v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
decide this controversy. The interest of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.