Supreme Court Transfers Trial Against Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti From MP To Delhi After He Alleges Intimidation Of Defence Witnesses

The Supreme Court today transferred to Delhi the trial in a cheating case against Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti after taking note of his allegation that the defense witnesses were pressurized.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Bharti), Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for State) and Senior Advocate Saurabh Mishra (for complainant), on Bharti's plea seeking transfer of the trial outside Madhya Pradesh.

In February this year, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had stayed the trial in the case, expressing dissatisfaction with the State's evasive replies on whether it enquired into allegations that witnesses were intimidated. During the hearing, the bench was told that the defence witnesses were taken to a hotel and pressurized to give evidence against the petitioner. The State, however, flatly denied the allegation.

Today, the bench noted that out of 11 witnesses, 3 had died and the petitioner gave up 6. Therefore, only 2 witnesses remained to be examined. It was further informed that the trial was at Section 313 CrPC stage.

Sibal referred to the FIR registered against Bharti. Highlighting the allegations (that Bharti had a fixed deposit which he extended beyond limit of 3 years), he said, "the whole problem has arisen because he won the election. They want that he get convicted for 3 years so that he loses his membership. That's all. That's the whole game...the official liquidator is not representing, the complainant is representing continuously". The senior counsel further relied on witness statement recorded by the investigating authority, in which the witness said that he was intimidated by local leaders to not testify in favor of the petitioner.

Mishra opposed the transfer saying that the transfer petition was filed when only 2 witnesses remained and now they are alleging that they were threatened. He also highlighted that the state is willing to give the witnesses protection and their evidence can be recorded on day-to-day basis. It was mentioned that the allegations of intimidation were enquired into by CID officers, but no evidence was found.

After hearing the parties, Justice Mehta orally remarked that on the face of it, witnesses claimed that they were threatened. Justice Nath on the other hand questioned the respondents' opposition to the transfer and underlined that justice must not only be done, but also seen to be done.

Insofar as Mishra averred that the authorities (including DPO, ADPO) against whom allegations were levelled are gone, Justice Mehta said, "it's not only that they are gone. The manner in which things were taken forward at the initial stage by involving people who were directly having links with you, the manner in which the trial was initially tried to be influenced, that's the whole...it's not a single incident...why is the bank so hell bent on opposing [transfer]? what is adverse to the bank if the matter is decided by one court or the other court?"

The bench also took note of the petitioner's contention that in the March report, the investigating officer recorded witness' statement about threats, but in a subsequent report of May, the same was ignored.

Case Title: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, T.P.(Crl.) No. 1120/2024 

Counsel for the Petitioner:

Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Guru Pal Singh, Ms. Pallavi Garg, Ms. Sanjana Sharma, Mr. Shubham Gawande, Mr. Shahbaaz Jameel, Advs. Mr. Kausar Raza Faridi, AOR

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. S.v. Raju, A.S.G., Mr. Bharat Singh, A.A.G. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Ga, Mrs. Pratima Singh, Ms. Saloni Singh, Mr. Arpit Garg, Advs.

Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR

Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shivang Rawat, Ms. Muskaan, Advs.

Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR

Click Here To Read/Download Order