In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has stayed the trial in a cheating case against Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti from Madhya Pradesh, after raising concerns over the intimidation of defense witnesses. The case has garnered attention due to the allegations of undue pressure on defense witnesses to testify against Bharti.

Background of the Case

The case involves Rajendra Bharti, a Congress MLA from Madhya Pradesh, who had filed a petition seeking to transfer the trial to another state. Bharti's concern arose from the alleged intimidation of defense witnesses, which he claimed had hindered the fair conduct of the trial. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that several defense witnesses had been taken to a hotel and coerced to provide evidence against the MLA.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Quashes Death Penalty Over Lack of Fair Trial in Madhya Pradesh Case

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its dissatisfaction with the State's response to the allegations. The bench noted that the State had failed to investigate the serious charges of witness intimidation adequately. Despite repeated queries, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Madhya Pradesh, Bharat Singh, could only provide a flat denial of the allegations without offering any substantial evidence to prove the veracity of the claim or the actions taken to inquire into it.

"There are documents on record to show that defense witnesses were pressurized. What enquiry have you done?"

This question highlighted the State's lack of accountability in addressing the alleged intimidation.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Transport Law: Repeal of 1976 Act Valid Without Fresh Presidential Assent

Justice Oka further emphasized the importance of ensuring a free and fair trial. The court pointed out that it was the State's duty to investigate such serious allegations of witness intimidation to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Justice Oka reminded the AAG that the defense witnesses were entitled to a fair opportunity to present their case without fear of coercion.

"You are the State, it is your duty to ensure free and fair trial. We take pride that even Ajmal Kasab was given a fair trial in this country. When a defense witness is giving a statement that he is pressurized, is it not your duty to enquire?"

The bench was further displeased by the State's defense, with the AAG reiterating the denial of the allegations without offering any investigation reports or supporting evidence. The Court questioned whether any senior police officer had inquired into the matter and why the affidavit submitted by a defense witness had not been taken seriously.

Read Also:- SC Upholds Karnataka Law Granting Transport Permit Issuance Power to STA Secretary

"Threatening witnesses is also an offence. Has the State registered any FIR on that allegation?"

This pointed question emphasized the severity of the allegations and the need for proper legal action.

Due to the State's failure to respond effectively to the court's queries, the bench decided to stay the trial proceedings. The Court ordered an independent inquiry into the allegations of witness intimidation. The bench made it clear that a fair trial could not proceed in the absence of proper investigation into such grave allegations.

The Court noted:

"Prima facie, it appears to us that there was enough material placed on the record of the trial court containing the allegation that more than one defense witness was tried to be intimidated. Obviously, the trial court should have taken action. Firstly, the question is whether the State made any attempt to inquire into the matter. When we made repeated queries to the AAG and the standing counsel for the State, they have no answer to the question. Considering this, we deem it appropriate to stay further proceedings of trial."

Read Also:- SC Upholds Kerala High Court's Direction to Register FIRs on Women's Exploitation in Malayalam Cinema

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring a fair and transparent trial process. The Court's intervention highlights its commitment to protecting the rights of individuals involved in legal proceedings, ensuring that no one is coerced or intimidated into giving testimony under duress. By staying the trial and ordering an independent inquiry, the Court has emphasized that the integrity of the judicial system must be preserved at all costs.

Case Details:

Case No.: T.P.(Crl.) No. 1120/2024

Diary No.: 58059/2024

Case Title: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh