HC dismisses UP govt plea to transfer CRPF attack case trial

Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application of the Uttar Pradesh government to transfer the trial in the case relating to terrorist attack on a CRPF camp at Rampur six years ago from the judgeship in that district "to any competent court" at Lucknow.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal passed the order on October 13 with the remark that the application, whereby transfer had also been sought of five accused - lodged in a jail at Bareilly - to Lucknow, "smacks lack of bona fide and viciousness on part of the state".
Eight persons, including seven CRPF personnel, were killed in the terrorist attack on the paramilitary force's camp at Rampur in the wee hours of December 31, 2007.

The court noted that out of the eight accused, five were detained at Bareilly and the remaining three at Lucknow and that trial was pending at Rampur, "which is just about 50-60 km away from Bareilly, while Lucknow is more than 300 km from Rampur".
The court said it "could not understand as to why no attempt has been made by the state to seek transfer of trial, if it was really necessary, to a competent court at Bareilly and also to transfer accused persons detained at Lucknow to Bareilly".
The court also pointed out that all the accused could have been "kept in same jail or any other nearby jail, near district Rampur, if for security or other reasons, it was not expedient to detain all of them in one jail".

"The state government, it appears, is interested only in having trial transferred to Lucknow. The approach of the state in this regard does not appear bona fide," the court said.

Dismissing the application, the court expressed displeasure over the delay in trial "in such a serious matter" and rapped the prosecution witnesses, who were "basically all police officials", for their non-appearance on dates fixed by the trial court.
The court directed the DGP to ensure that "trial is not hampered due to absence of prosecution witnesses" and asked the Chief Secretary to "formulate certain guidelines ensuring appropriate disciplinary action against erring officials", as "similar difficulty is being faced across the state by all courts seized with criminal matters".

Besides, the court said that in case the trial could not be completed within six months, "a progress report justifying extension of time shall be submitted to this court" for appropriate orders.