TAPAS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2019 Latest Caselaw 1181 SC

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 1181 SC
Judgement Date : 02 Dec 2019

Headnote :
In the Turtle poaching case under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Court chose not to intervene with the High Court\'s decision to deny the petitioner\'s second bail application. Although the Court instructed the trial Court to conclude the trial within six months, progress has been hindered due to frequent changes in the Chief Judicial Magistrate assigned to the case. The Court has now directed the relevant administrative authority to ensure that once a case is assigned to a specific Magistrate, that Magistrate should not be transferred until the trial is completed within six months from the receipt of this order.

Before :- A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.10040 of 2019. D/d. 2.12.2019.

Tapas - Petitioners

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- P.S. Datta, Sr. Adv., Fazlur Rahman, Ms. Anwesha Saha, Satyajeet Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Rahul Khatri, Ms. Indrani Dey, Advocates.

ORDER

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. We are not inclined to interfere in this special leave petition which is filed to assail the order of the High Court rejecting second bail application filed by the petitioner.

3. Our attention was invited to order dated 26.02.2019 passed by this Court, in connection with the same crime, in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8179 of 2018 directing the trial Court to complete the trial within six months. Despite such peremptory direction we are informed that the trial has not progressed.

4. When called upon to explain this position, counsel for the State submits that the prosecution is more than willing to proceed with the trial but due to fortuitous situation the trial has not proceeded, namely, the Chief Judicial Magistrate assigned with the trial has been frequently changed. If this is the state of affairs, we direct the concerned administrative authority to ensure that once the case is allotted to a particular Magistrate, he shall not be transferred until the trial is completed within six months from the receipt of copy of this order.

5. In case there is any impediment, the State must immediately move a formal application before this Court for seeking appropriate directions.

6. We accept the undertaking given by Mr. Ritesh Sarothiya, Deputy Conservator of Forests, State Tiger Task Force, Madhya Pradesh, who is present in Court, that all efforts will be made by the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded within six months from today.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for being placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court forthwith for seeking necessary directions as may be required.

8. The special leave petition and pending applications are disposed of.