Karnataka HC rejects plea to transfer Nithyananda rape case to Bangalore Sessions Court

The Karnataka High Court yesterday dismissed a petition that sought for the transfer of the rape case against self-proclaimed Godman Nithyananda Swami from Ramanagara District Court to Bangalore..A Single Judge Bench of Justice BA Patil further commented on the attitude of K Lenin, the petitioner in the matter..In this regard, the Court held, ."Though many a times the complainant has sought for adjournment on the ground of health problem, the records indicate that even though he was present before the Court, he has not stepped into the witness box to give evidence. The said attitude of the complainant [Lenin] is deprecated. If he really wants to do justice, then under such circumstances, he must come forward and give the evidence as contemplated under the law. Without doing the same, he has acted on his own way that he is leading the Court instead of Court controlling the case and proceeding with the matter."Karnataka High Court.Arguments of the PetitionerAdvocate Ashwin Vaish, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the trial court had ignored the evidence of the petitioner recorded on August 8, 2018 and August 16, 2018. This created an apprehension in the mind of the complainant about the bias on the part of the Sessions Judge towards the accused, Nithyananda.The High Court noted the other submissions made by Vaish, thus:.“It is his further submission that the learned Sessions Judge in order to secure the presence of the complainant, has issued NBW and has passed the remarks to produce the medical certificate for his absence on 24.9.2019. Though the petitioner was suffering from health issues and was unable to take up a travel, such a drastic step has been taken as against the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge. It is his further submission that bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner to compel his attendance. It is his further submission that a lenient view has also been taken in respect of the accused No.1 though he was not present and the evidence has been recorded.".In light of the above, the petitioner was under an apprehension that he may not receive a fair trial before the District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara, and therefore, pleaded the Court to transfer the matter..Arguments of the the Respondent Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, appearing for one of Nithyananda's followers, stated that the evidence recorded in August 2018 was done with the help of the translator who was subsequently identified as a witness in the same case. Therefore, this evidence was nullified by the court, which called for fresh recording of evidence. The lower court held that the translator had to be a person unconnected with the case, Nagesh argued..Nagesh further pointed out that the accused was always ready to proceed with the matter, but it was due to the interference and multiple applications filed by the petitioner that the proceedings were being delayed..He also argued that for transfer of a criminal matter, there must be a reasonable apprehension that the party will not get justice. Mere allegation that there is an apprehension that justice will not be served does not suffice, he submitted..What the High Court heldAfter hearing the parties, the Court opined that transfer cannot be done as a matter of routine. Further, the Court also stated that in the present case, the translator in the matter was not appointed as per law. Therefore, the evidence given in 2018 cannot be considered. In this regard, the judgment reads,."...I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of the petitioner-complainant recorded on 8.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 and the evidence recorded subsequently on 18.9.2019 afresh will not going to create any apprehension for the reason that the translator was not appointed in accordance with law."Karnataka High Court.However, considering the fact that the trial had been pending for the past 10 years, the High Court has directed the Ramanagara District Court to speed up the trial process by adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Akil @ Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi)."On going through the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it indicates that the trial Court must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed in Section 231 of Cr.P.C. read along with Section 309 of Cr.P.C. in order to ensure speedy trial of a case and rule out the possibility of any manoeuvring taking place by granting undue long adjournments for the mere asking. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law and on perusal of records, it indicates that either at the instance of the prosecution or some times at the instance of the accused, the case has been adjourned for a decade and no progress has been made.".Before opining that neither the parties nor the court in this case have ensured progress in the case, the High Court noted,"The Court has to balance the rights of the accused as well as the complainant by giving equal opportunities to both the parties. Slow going of a case is considered to be an evil to the society. The laws are meant for securing the justice in the society and if the Courts are not going to protect the rule of law and its enforcement, then there will be an anarchy and violence. It is the duty of the Court to enforce the law. The rule of law has to prevail and Court has to see that nobody violates the law.".Calling for the need to expedite the trial, Justice Patil went on to hold,"In order to expedite the trial, if some steps are taken, then under such circumstances, it cannot be considered to be an illegal act which will bias the petitioner. Already a decade has been spent and if on this silly reason if the contention is taken up without there being any material, it is going to delay the proceedings. Even the records indicate that only with an intention to harass, such steps have been taken by both the parties.".The Court finally held that there was no reasonable apprehension on the part of the complainant to transfer the case..Earlier this month, the Karnataka High Court cancelled the bail granted to Nithyananda in 2010 in relation to a rape case..[Read judgment here]