"Court Can't Be Perceived To Be Accused or Victim Centric": Bombay High Court Refuses To Transfer Builder Sunil Lahoriya Murder Trial

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale said a case was "not made out" for transfer while hearing a petition filed by the slain builder's son – Sandeep Lahoriya. The court, however, directed the trial judge to consider the son's grievances to play the CCTV footage from February 16, 2013, where his father is seen being shot and stabbed outside his office and is still alive on his way to the hospital.

Lahoriya, supported by a letter from the Special Public Prosecutor to the Law and Judiciary Department, alleged bias by the trial court judge from Thane – RR Vaishnav, in granting bail to prime accused Suresh Bijlani and Anurag Garg, last year.

The son's lawyers pressed for two weeks to approach the Supreme Court. But the request was denied.

"Such an order cannot be passed in a routine manner and substantial grounds, based on sufficient material, need to exist for passing such an order transferring the trial," the bench said, refusing to set aside order expediting the trial in 2018 and appointing judge Vaishnav to hear the case.

The court observed that the prosecutor has certain grievances with the judge, but it is the role of the court and the prosecutor to ensure proceedings are conducted in a "fair manner" and justice is done to both the accused as well as the victim.

"The endeavour of the proceedings is to ascertain as to who is guilty of the alleged crime and it can neither be an approach giving an impression that there is a bias, either in favour of the accused or victim."

"Neither can a Court be perceived to be accused centric nor can it be perceived to be victim centric in its approach," the bench added.

Lahoriya's gruesome murder, in 2013, had shaken the builder community as the CCTV footage of the murder went viral. The case was transferred to Mumbai Police Crime Branch for investigation, which arrested 13 accused, including a retired police officer.

In his petition Lahoriya claimed that CCTV footage showing his dad was alive when he reached hospital wasn't permitted to be played by the trial court despite a request made by the special public prosecutor. His lawyers submitted there were heated arguments between the judge and special public prosecutor after which the bail applications were rejected by the judge from his chamber.

He also questioned the manner in which bail applications of the two accused were allowed and claimed that threats to witnesses were not recorded. Therefore, the case be transferred to another judge, he submitted.

The accused, represented by Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan and advocates Ashwin Thool and Sudha Dwivedi, vehemently opposed the plea. It was argued that the Special Public Prosecutor had been absent on many occasions, leading to delay in proceedings before the court.

They further said that the petition was an attempt to delay the trial.

The bench held that the trial was already delayed and bail granted to the accused was challenged in another petition.

"Insofar as the merits of the order allowing the bail applications of two accused persons are concerned, we are of the opinion that since the same is subject matter of challenge in this Court in an appropriate proceeding, we refrain from going into the merits of the said order