The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Courts has transferred the Bhushan Steel Money Laundering case from one judge to another after the accused alleged that the judge has “probable bias” in favour of Enforcement Directorate (ED) because he allegedly remarked “ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai (who gets bail in ED matters)”.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Courts transferred the Bhushan Steel Money Laundering case from one judge to another following allegations of “probable bias” made against the initial judge. The allegations arose after the accused claimed that the judge had remarked,
“ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai (who gets bail in ED matters)”.
In an order passed on May 1, Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna reassigned the case from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar.
“The ECIR No.06/DLZO-II/2019 (including the bail application of the applicant) is withdrawn from the court of Sh Jagdish Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI-16 and is assigned to the court of Sh Mukesh Kumar, Ld Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI-05, RADC, New Delhi for adjudication and disposal as per law,”
-the court ordered.
Judge Chandna noted that the apprehension expressed by the accused could not be dismissed as “misconceived or misplaced.” The judge also highlighted that the case was in its initial stages and that transferring it would not cause prejudice to the respondent.
“Accordingly, it is felt appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. The application of the applicant is allowed,”
–the court said.
The plea for transfer was filed by Ajay S. Mittal, an accused in the case, seeking a transfer of the proceedings from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to another court “in the interest of justice.”
Mittal’s plea stated that his bail application had been listed for hearing before Judge Kumar on April 10, 2023. On that date, Mittal’s counsel sought time to prepare for arguments, and the matter was adjourned to April 25.
Mittal’s wife, who is also an accused in the case, was present during the proceedings. After the counsel left the courtroom, the court staff inquired about something, and the judge allegedly remarked,
“lene do date, ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai (let them keep taking dates, where is the question of bail in ED cases).”
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the plea, arguing that Mittal had failed to demonstrate reasonable apprehension based on the totality of the facts. They contended that transferring the matter on mere asking would seriously undermine confidence and credibility in the judicial system.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge considered the case and held that the
“perception and viewpoint of petitioner/applicant whereby he does not expect impartial hearing from the court, has to be given due regard in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
“The fairness and equality are hallmark of the criminal justice system. The judges are obliged to decide the cases before them with impartiality, integrity, and by ensuring the equality of treatment. In doing so, judges are upholding the rule of law. It is also one of the basic principles of administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should also be seen to be done,”
-the court concluded.
READ/DOWNLOAD ORDER-
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rouse Avenue Courts
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
