Holding

A transfer of the trial is not warranted where allegations of communal tension are unsubstantiated and the trial can be conducted fairly and conveniently in the original jurisdiction.

Summary

The petitioners, among 181 accused in the Coimbatore serial bomb blast case, filed a transfer petition under Sections 406 and 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to move the trial from Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu to Kerala, alleging that communal tension in the state would prevent a fair and impartial trial and that they would not obtain adequate legal assistance. The State of Tamil Nadu contended that there was no pervasive communal atmosphere, that the majority of accused and witnesses were local, and that a special court and extensive prison facilities had already been arranged for a speedy trial. The Supreme Court examined whether the apprehension of bias was reasonable and whether the convenience of all parties, including the prosecution, other accused, and witnesses, warranted a transfer. It held that mere allegations of a surcharged atmosphere without concrete proof of inability to conduct a fair trial are insufficient grounds for transfer, and that the trial could be conducted impartially in Coimbatore. Consequently, the Court dismissed the transfer petition, directing the trial to proceed in Coimbatore.

Issues considered

The appellant's apprehension of an unfair trial due to alleged communal tension is a reasonable ground for transfer under Sections 406/407 CrPC.
Whether the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, and witnesses outweighs the petitioner's claim of bias.
Whether the alleged lack of adequate legal representation justifies relocation of the trial.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1-B)(a)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 406, s. 407
Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 3, s. 4(b), s. 5, s. 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 114, s. 120B, s. 148, s. 149, s. 153, s. 153A(1), s. 201, s. 212, s. 302, s. 307, s. 449, s. 465, s. 468, s. 471
Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992s. 4

Subjects

Transfer of criminal trialFair trialCommunal tensionConvenience of partiesCrPC sections 406 407Coimbatore bomb blastJurisdiction

Judgment

A ABDUL NAZAR MADANI ETC.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

MAY5, 2000

B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973~ection 406-Transfer petition~eek
ing transfer to another State-On the apprehension of not getting fair trial in
the State-In view of surcharged communal tension in the area-And on the
c ground of not getting adequate representation by lawyers-All arrangements
for trial already made-Most of the co-accused and the witnesses belonging
to the place of trial-No evidence that whole of the State communally
surcharged-Accused adequately represented-Held, the transfer of the case
at this stage, is not only against the interests of the pmsecution but also
against the interests of the other accused persons, the prosecution witnesses
D and the convenience of all the concerned in the matter:

Sections 406 & 407-Transfer petition-Considerations for transfer-
Held, any party can seek transfer of a case on the apprehension of not getting
a fair trial-But such apprehension should be reasonable and not based on
conjectures and sunnises-The decision has to be based on the facts and
E
circumstances of each case- Convenience of parties, i.e., the prosecution,
other accused, the witnesses and the larger interests of the society, is relevan_t
consideration.

181 accused including the petitioners, were alleged to be involved in
-
F Coimbatore serial bomb blast case, and were charged under sections 120-
B, 302, 307, 449, 465, 468, 471, 212, 153-A{l), 148, 149, 201, 109, 114 and
l53 IPC; Syctions 3, 4(b), 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sec-
tions -l5(t-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; and their case was
G pending in the Trial Court in Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu).

The petitioners filed transfer petition before this Court for transfer
of the above-mentioned case from Coimbatore to any Sessions Court in
Kerala, on the grounds that there was no possibility of fair trial in the State
of Tamil Nadu in view of the communally surcharged tension in the State;
H that they and other accused persons were not likely to get proper legal
1028
A.N. MADAN! v. STATE 1029

- r assistance; and alternatively submitted that their case be transferred to
some other place in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners relied on the
averments made by the Commissioner of Police in an order wherein it was
stated that Coimbatore city had become communally hypersensitive place
A

.
~
in the recent years in view of the communal riots.

Respondent,State contended that there was no communal tension in B
the State; and that advocates have already appeared for the accused in the
courts at Coimbatore. The respondents also pointed out that out of the 168
i
accused, who were put in several jails in the State, more than 150 accused
were from Coimbatore; that total number of witnesses, likely to be pro-
cluced were 2333, out of whom 2083 were Tamil speaking witnesses; that c
special from exclusively for speedy trial of the case, was constituted; that
the building adjacent to the Central Prison, Coimbatore was remodelled
with the object of accommodating the special court, costing a huge amount;
and that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. consisting of statements
and documents running into 16480 pages in Tamil had been submitted.
D
Dismissing the petitions, this Court

HELD : 1. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and
impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is
shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously
t undermined any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State, E
under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is
required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and
surmises. H it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not
possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court F
or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to
another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is condo-
cive. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a
transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of
each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be pro-
G
duced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer
petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the
~ convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on miscon-
ceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purpose of transfer
means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and
the larger interest of the society. (1035-G-H; 1036-A-B] H
-
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.

A G.X. Francis & Ors. v. Banke Bihari Singh & Anr:, AIR (1958) SC 309, ~
referred to.

2. The mere existence of a surcharged atmosphere \\-ithout there
being proof of inability for holding fair and impartial trial cannot be made. .
r'

a ground for transfer of a case. Alleged communally surcharged atmos-
B phere has to be considered in the light of the accusations made and the
nature of the crime committed by the accused seeking transfer of his case.
It will be unsafe to hold that as and when accusations are made regarding
the existence of a surcharged communal atmosphere, the case should be
transferred from the area where existence of such surcharged atmosphere
is alleged. [1036-E-F] •
c
G.X. Francis & Ors. v. Banke Bihari Singh & Anr:, AIR (1958) SC 309,
distinguished.

3. Petitioners in the instant case have made wild and general allega-
tions of the surcharged atmosphere against a particular community of the
D society in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu. In a secular, democratic
State, Government is responsible for ensuring free, fair and impartial trial
to the accused notwithstanding the nature of accusations made against
them. Nothing has been placed on record nor was it possible to allege that
the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu has become a communal State. which
cannot ensure a free, fair and impartial trial against the petitioners. If such ~
E
a situation is shown to be existing the State Government has no constitu-
tional and moral right to rule the.State as it would amount to perpetuating
the continuance of a Government against the provisions of the Constitu-
tion which ensures and guarantees of a secular democratic systems of
Governance. [1036-G-H; 1037-A]
F
4. The atmosphere in the State is not communally surcharged to the
extent that holding of criminal trial against the petitioners and others is
not possible in any part of the State. Even if some communal tension is

G
shown to be in existence as perhaps is likely to be in view of the nature of
offence committed and accusations made against petitioner and other
accused persons, it is the obligation of the State Government to ensure the
-
safety and security of the accused persons to stand free and impartial trial.
The averments of the Commissioner of Police cannot be stretched to hold ' ~
firstly that the whole State of Tamil Nadu has become communally
surcharged and secondly that Coimbatore City itself continues to be so
H communally hypersensitive till date that the trial against the petitioners
- ~
A.N. MADANI v. STATE [SETHL J.]

and other accused persons is not likely to be free, fair and impartial.
[1037-C-D]
1031

5. There is no suhstance in the submission of the petitioners that as
A

they and other accused persons are not likely to get proper legal assistance,
the case should be transferred to some other State. This court is satisfied
that the petitioners and other. accused are adequately represented in the B
court and even if not, they can get the legal services from Pal ghat in Kerala
where they want the case to be transferred. [1037-H]

6. The court is not satisfied with the alternative submission of the
petitioner as the court is of opinion that at present there exists conducive
atmosphere at Coimbatore where free, fair and impartial trial is possible c
to be conducted against the accused persons. In view of the facts, that
despite the petitioners there are 152 other accused pers!lns out of and more
than 150 of them are from Coimhatore and the State Government have
made elaborate arrangements for their stag in Central prison Coimbatore
by making provision of having specified cells for the accused persons, D
Iakhs of Rupees are shown to have been spent for the conduct of the case,
the transfer of the case at this stage, is not only against the interest of the
prosecution but also against the interests of the other accused persons, the
prosecution witnesses and the convenience of all concerned in the matter.
~ A fair and speedy trial of the case is possible at Coimbatore and the

...
.,
accused persons including the petitioners need not have any cause for
apprehension. [1038-D-G]

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL nJRISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.
E

183 of 1999 Etc.

Under Section 406 Crl. P.C. F

Dr. AM. Singhvi, V.K. Beeram, Haris Beeram, S. Dave, Shakil Ahmed

-
Syed and S.U.K. Sagar for the Petitioners.

V.R. Reddy and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
j..
SETHI, J. Being some of the accused along with 152 others involved
in what is popularly known as Coimbatore-Bomb Blast Case, the petitioners
have prayed for the transfer of case PRC No.54 of 1998 pending in the Court
of FCJ Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu entitled State v. Abdul H
-
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R.
A Nazir Madani and others to any Sessions Court in the State of Kerala -.,
allegedly on the ground 'of there being n? possibility of fair uial in the State
of Tamil Nadu. It is alleged that in the State of Tamil Nadu both Hindu and
Muslim fundamentalists are inciting trouble which has surcharged the com-
.r.-
munal atmosphere in that State making the condµct of the fair trial impossible.
It is apprehended that the witnesses will not be in a position to give evidence
B
without fear or favour. The petitioner Abdul Nazar Madani has referred to
some attack on him by RSS Cadres during August, 1992 as a consequence.
of which he sustained injuries which ultimately resulted in the imputation of 4'
his light leg. He has two children aged four and one year old and a wife from
a very poor family. He claims to be the founder of Al-amwar islamic Madras
c and Orphanage in Kollam District in Kerala where about 280 orphans are
stated to be studying for whose day to day expenses an amount of Rs.2050
is required which is not possible to procure in his absence. He has further
claimed to be the leader of an organisation named "Islamic Seva Sangh"
which, according to him, was a social and cultural organisation. The said ~·
organisation is stated to have been declared as unlawful organisation in the
D
State of Kerala after the demolition of Babri Masjid. Thereafter the said
petitioner is stated to have organised a party named Peoples Democratic Party.
He submits that there exists a feeling generally in Tamilnadu, Chennai and
Coimbatore that the petitioner was an ISi (Pakistani Intelligence Service)
agent who was responsible for the bomb blasts in the city of Coimbatore in
E ~
Tamilnadu. It is alleged that a popular opmion appears to have been formed
that no patriotic lawyer from Tamilnadu would appear and plead the case of
the petitioners, as they thought it as anti-national and due to intimidation by
the Police Intelligence Wing, lawyers are not willing to take up tl1eir bliefs.
-
On their behalf some advocates from Kerala are stated to have visited
F Coimbatore and Chennai with a request to local lawyers there to cooperate
with the petitioners and conduct their cases but all of them are stated to have
refused. It is submitted that being a well known political leader in the State
of Kerala, the respondents have falsely implicated petitioner Madani, with
others in the criminal cases.

G In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted
that the petitioners along with others are involved in Coimbatore B-1 Bazar
Police Station CR No.151 of 1998 under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 449, 465, ~
468, 471, 212, 153A(l), 148, 149, 201, 109, 114 and 353 IPC, Sections 3,
4 (b), 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 25(1-B)(a) of the
H Alms Act, 1959 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
A.N. MADANI v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 1033

'
_, r Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The petitioner, Madani is stated to be the prime A
accused concerned in the Serial Bomb Blast Case of Coimbatore. It is alleged
that on 14.2.1998 at about 4 p.m. when Shri L.K. Advani, the then President
of Bhartiya Janta Party was to address election meeting at RS Puram,
;' Coimbatore City, the whole of the city and its suburbs were hit by a series
of 12 powerful bomb blasts killing 47 persons and injuring 218 persons apart
B
from causing extensive damage to the properties owned primarily by a
particular section of the society. TI1e high intensity bombs/Improvised Explo-
sive Devices (IEDs) exploded all over the city and its suburbs including near
the venue of the public meeting. The bomb blasts were targeted at some
specified congregations and their establishments. Shri L.K. Advani was
planned to be targeted by Suicide Squad members armed with "instantaneous- c
type bombs" tied to their waists and "throw-type bombs'', which, however,
could not materialise since neither the members of the suicide squad charged
with the task could penetrate the police cardon and reach near the public
meeting place, nor Shri Advani was available at the targeted place at the
scheduled time due to delay of his flight. The blasts had been planned and
D
executed by the muslim fundamentalists organisation named "Al-Umma"
headed by S.A. Basha, co-accused No.1 in the case allegedly as a brutal
answer/retaliation to the killing of 18 muslims in communal riots and police
firing and extensive damages to the muslim properties following the stabbing
to death of a Traftic Police Constable Selvaraj at Ukkadam, Coimbatore on
';- 29.11.1997. There were some other bomb blasts resulting in total the death E
of 58 persons besides injming 250 persons. Private and public properties to
the tune of Rs.4.37 crores is also stated to ha.ve been damaged. The petitioner
Madani has admitted to be the founder leader of Islamic Seva Sangh and
presently the leader of Peoples Democratic party. He was an-ested at Kozhikode
on 31.3.1998 in connection with Kozhikode Kasha PS Cr.No.103/92 u/s 153- F
A and B IPC and in the case in Cr.No.62/98 under Section 120(B) 212 IPC
and under Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act, 1959 and was
remanded to judicial custody and lodged in Central Piison, Cannanore, Kerala
State. His involvement in the Coimbatore Series Bomb Blast case caine to
light from the alleged confession statement made by accused Tajudeen @ Abu
Mujahith, Accused No.3 on 26th March, 1988. Other accused persons were G
arrested from different places on different dates.
)..
Regarding allegations of the petitioners which have been made basis
for seeking transfer, tlie respondents have submitted tliat it was not correct
to state that there existed feelings in Tamil Nadu in general or in Chennai H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R.
A and Coimbature in particular, that no patriotic lawyer would appear and plead
-.: . ~
for any of the accused persons in the Bomb Blast cases. The submission of
the petitioners is alleged to be illusory. Advocates from Chennai, Vijayawada
and Coimbatore are stated to have already appeared for the accused in the
courts at Coimbature and also before the High Court of Judicature at Chennai. '·

B A list of such advocates has been annexed with the counter affidavit as
Annexure A. Regarding the existence of an alleged surcharged communal
atmosphere, it is submitted that there is presently no communal tension in
Tamil Nadu as communal hatmony is maintained in the State. The situation
which was created in tl1e aftermath of series bomb blasts in February, 1998
has since been completely defused and n01malised due to tl1e strong measures
c taken by the fair and firm investigation of the case and by tl1e law and order
machinery. The atmosphere in the State is stated to be peaceful and the trial
is assured to be conducted peacefully and smoothly.

The submission of tl1e petitioners that they will not get any assistance
D of lawyers of their choice due to rivalry of religious fundamentalists is false
and concocted, deliberately put as a ground to stall and delay the progress
of the case. The proposed transfer would cause inconvenience not only to the
prosecution but also other co-accused persons. Most of the witnesses are in
Tamil Nadu and to ensure tl1e speedy trial of the case the prayer of the
petitioner is liable to be rejected.
E -i
We have heard the leatued counsel for the parties and perused the
records. Appearing for the respondents Shri V.R. Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel has brought to our notice that charge-sheet had been laid against 181
accused persons out of whom 8 have died and 5 are still at large. Remaining
F 168 accused are lodged in various prisons in the State of Tamil Nadu. Out
of 168 accused persons 154 are froni Coimbatore, 7 from Kerala 2 from
Kamataka and 2 from Andhra Pradesh. Total number of witnesses which are
likely to be produced are 2333 out of whom 2083 are Tamil speaking
witnesses. The Government has constituted a special court exclusively for tl1e
speedy trial of this case. Remodelling of the building adjacent to the Central
G
Prison, Coimbatore with the object of accommodating the special court was
completed in January, 2000 at a cost of Rs.22.40 lacs. Final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. consisting of statements and documents which runs into ~
16480 pages in Tamil has been submitted. Total copies running into 37 lakh
pages have been made and supplied to the accused persons on 27th March,
H 2000. Shri Thanikachalam, the Special Judge has taken charge on 7.4.2000.
A.N. MADANI v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 1035
The learned counsel has also sl1-0wn us the sketch regarding the location of A

" the Central Prison and the special court specially constituted for the trial of
bomb blast case along with photographs of the specially made cells where
all the accused persons are intend~d to be accommodated during the trial of
~ . the case.

Dr. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has B
drawn our attention to various averments made in the petition particularly in
paras 16, 17 and 25 to urge that in view of existing surcharged atmosphere
it was not possible to have a fair trial of the accused persons in the State of
Tamil Nadu. In the alternative he has submitted that if the transfer of the case
from the State of Tamil Nadu is not possible, the same be transferred to any c
cowt at Chennai, Thirunalveli, Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. Relying
upon G.X Francis & Ors. v. Banke Bihari Singh & Anr., AIR (1958) SC 309,
he has argued that in view of the surcharged communal tension in the area,
the local atmosphere not being conducive to fair and impartial trial, there
existed good ground for the transfet of the case to another State. In support D
of his submissions he has referred to Annexure P-3, proceedings of the
Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City which is an order passed under the
National Security Act dated 7.7.1998. Relying upon the averments made
therein to the effect that "Coimbatore City has become a communally
hypersensitive place in the recent years in view of the communal riots. On
,.. 29.11.1997 at Ukkadam Traffic Point, Selvaraj, a Traffic Police Constable on
E
duty was brutally murdered by the muslim youths belonging to Al-Umma.
This resulted in the outburst of a major communal harmony", the learned
counsel has submitted that in the interests of justice and for fair trial of the
case, the prayer made in the petition is justified.
F
The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice
i uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public
confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party
can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and
anywhere in the country under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. The apprehension
G
of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable
and not imaginary based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the
). dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and
without any bias, before any comt or even at any place, the appropriate cowt
may transfer the case to another comt where it feels that holding of fair and
proper trial is conducive . .No universal or hard and fast rnles can be prescribed H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 3 S.C.R.
A for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis
of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses
to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the
transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean
the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on
B misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of
transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the wit-
nesses and the larger interest of the society.

In G.X. Francis's case (supra) this Comt felt that where public con-
fidence in the fairness of the tiial is likely to be seriously undermined under
C the circumstances of the case, transfer petition could be allowed. On finding
· that "there is uniformity of testimony from both sides about the nature of
surcharged communal tension in that area", the Court found that the local
atmosphere was not conducive to a fair and impartial trial which justified a
good ground for transfer. The comt rejected the contention of the petitioner
D therein regarding the wild allegations made to the effect that no comt in the
State of M.P. would be unbiased or impartial for dispensing justice. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the ti"ial was transferred to an
adjoining court. The mere existence of a surcharged atmosphere- without there
being proof of inability for holding fair and impartial u·ial cannot be made
a ground for transfer of a case. Alleged communally surcharged atmosphere
E has to be considered in the light of the accusations made and the nature of
the crime committed by the accused seeking transfer of his case. It will be
unsafe to hold that as and when accusations are made regarding the existence
of a surcharged communal atmosphere, the case should be transferred from
the area where existence of such surcharged atmosphere is alleged. This Court
F had not concluded so generally in Francis's case as has been .argued before
us on behalf of the petitioner.

On facts also we find that petitioners in the instant case have made wild
and general allegations of the surcharged atmosphere against a particular
community of the society in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu. We are
G
of the opinion that in a secular, democratic country governed by the rule of
law, the appropriate State Government is responsible for ensuring free, fair
and impartial trial to the accused notwithstanding the nature of accusations
made against them. Nothing has been placed on record nor was it possible
to allege that the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu has become a communal
H State which cannot ensure a free, fair and impartial trial against the petition-
A.N. MADAN! v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 1037
ers. If such a situation is shown to be existing, the State Government has no A
constitutional and moral right to rule the State as it would amount to
perpetuating the continuance of a Govcrmment against the provisions of the
Constitution which .ensures and guarantees of a secular, democratic system
of governance. The respondent have very emphatically submitted and we
have no reason to doubt that the atmosphere in the State is not communally
B
surcharged to the extent that holding of criminal trial against the petitioners
and others is not possible in any part of the State. Even if some communal
tension is shown to be in existence as perhaps is likely to be in view of the
nature of offence committed and the accusations made against the petitioner
and other accused persons, it is the obligation of the State Government to
ensure the safety and security of the accused persoi:is to stand free and c
impartial trial. It is true that in the detention order dated 7.7.1998 against the
petitioner, the Commissioner of Police has mentioned that on account of the
communal riots the Coimbatore City had become communally hypersensitive
but those averments cannot be stretched to hold firstly that the whole State
of Tamil Nadu has become communally surcharged and secondly that D
Coimbatore City itself continues to be so communally hypersensitive till date
that the trial against the petitioners and other accused persons is not likely
to be free, fair and impartial. In the counter affidavit the respondents have
specifically stated:
E
"With regard to the averments in Ground (A) of the petition, it is
submitted that it is not con-ect to state that the communal tension is
prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu and both Muslim and Hindu
fundamentalist are incihng troubles which will lead to communal
tension is presently no c~mmunal tension in Tamil Nadu and commu-
nal hannony is maintained in the State. The situation that was created F
in the aftermatl1 of the &erial bomb blasts of February, 1998, has been
since completely defused and normalised due to the strong measures
taken by the fair and film investigation of ilie case and by ilie Law
& Order machinery. 111e atmosphere in ilie State is peaceful. Hence
the trial will be conducted peacefully and smoothly." G
). After perusing Annexure A we do not find any substance in the
submission of the petitioners that as they and other accused persons are-not
likely to get proper legal assistance, the case should be transfeITed to some
other State. We are also satisfied that the petitioners and other accused are
adequately represented in the court and even if not, they can get the legal H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A services from Palghat in Kerala where they want the case to be transfeITed.
It may be noticed that Palghat is approximately 40 kilometers from Coimbatore
and it is not difficult for any number of advocates to travel or stay at
Coimbatore during the conduct of the tiial. We are sure that if any advocate
from outside the State of Tamil Nadu appears for any of the accused, the State
B Government shall provide him appropriate security to ensure him the dis-
charge of his professional obligation towards the accused persons facing the
trial in the case filed against them.

Dr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners alterna-
tively submitted that even if this Court does not find any ground to u·ansfer
C the case of the petitioner from the State of Tamil Nadu to any other State,
· particularly the State of Kerala, the trial of the case be ordered to be
conducted at some other place in the State of Tamil Nadu preferably at
Chennai, Thirunalveli or Salem. We are not satisfied with this submission also
as we are of the opinion that at present there exists conducive atmosphere
at Coimbatore where free, fair and impartial trial is possible to be conducted
D
against the accused persons. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that
despite the petitioners there are 152 other accused persons out of which more
than 150 are from Coimbatore and the State Government have made elaborate
arrangements for their stay in the Centi·al Prison, Coimbatore by making ·
provision of having specified cells for the accused persons. We cannot forget
E the expenses of Rs.22.40 lacs incurred by the State Government for re-
modelling the building adjacent to the Central Prison to accommodate the
special court for which even a judicial officer has been appointed who is
stated to have taken charge on 7.4.2000. Lakhs of rupees are shown to have
been spent for the conduct of smooth, speedy, fair and impartial trial. The
F transfer of the case, at this stage, is not only against the interests of the
prosecution but also against the interests o.f the other accused persons, the
prosecution witnesses and the convenience of all concerned in the matter. We
are satisfied that a fair and speedy trial of the case is possible at Coimbatore
and the accused persons including the petitioners need not have any cause
G for .apprehension.

In this regard we have also perused the figures furnished to us showing
the authorised accommodation and the actual population in the lock-ups in
the State of Tamil Nadu. Whereas in Coimbatore Central Piison the authorised
accommodation is for 2208 persons and the present lock-up strength is only
H 1998. In Chennai the position is otherwise as against authorised accommo-.,
A.N. MADAN! v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 1039
'
dation of 1419 persons 1765 have been and are being accommodated. We A
cannot loose sight of the statement made on behalf of the respondents that
in Coimbatore Central Prison separate cells have been renovated for accom-
modation of 168 accused persons in the instant case and such a facility is
not available elsewhere in any other prison in that State.

The present petitions which are totally misconceived are hereby dis- B
missed with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and if possible
hold the same on day to day basis so that cause_ of justice is achieved without
any further delay.

K.K.T. Petitions dismissed.

).