NEW DELHI: A
Delhi court
has transferred a
money-laundering case
relating to Bhushan Steel from one judge to another after an accused in the case expressed lack of confidence in the judge as one of the accused claimed to have overheard him saying “ED matters mein kaun si bail hoti hai?”
Principal district judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of Rouse Avenue court observed that “fairness and equality are hallmarks of criminal justice system” where judges are obliged to decide cases before them with impartiality, integrity, and by ensuring equality of treatment.
In doing so, judges are upholding the rule of law, she said.
“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,” judge Chandna noted while agreeing to transfer the matter out of special judge Jagdish Kumar’s court.
The judge was dealing with an application by PMLA accused Ajay Mittal, who said he was apprehensive & cited the remark allegedly made by Kumar to his staff.
Mittal’s wife, a co-accused in the case, filed an affidavit that after the day’s proceedings got over on April 10, judge Kumar passed the comment while in conversation with staff. The affidavit said that while she was watching the matter, and once the counsels had left, the court staff enquired about something and judge Kumar passed a comment (“Lene do date-ein, ED matters mein kaun si bail hoti hai?”), Mittal, in his plea before the district judge, contended that the comments came as a shock to him and that there was reasonable apprehension that the judge was sitting with a pre-determined and pre-judicial mind to dismiss his bail application.
The district judge noted the court cannot go into the merits of allegations by holding an inquiry at this stage and underlined that there is no complaint as to the conduct of judge Kumar. She said the issue raised by accused is an apprehension that the judge has made up his mind to the effect that bail isn’t available in ED matters.
“The perception of the petitioner / applicant whereby he doesn’t expect impartial hearing from the court has to be given due regard in the facts and circumstances of the case. The pleas, duly supported by an affidavit, cannot be outrightly discarded. Relegating the applicant to a court upon which specific allegations of bias are made would possibly have an adverse bearing on his case,” the district judge noted.
