On Monday (February 10), the Supreme Court put a hold on the trial in a cheating case involving Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti, after considering his claim that defense witnesses were being coerced.

A bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued the order in response to a petition filed by Bharti, requesting the transfer of the trial to another State.

During the hearing, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s vague responses regarding whether it had investigated the allegations of witness intimidation.

The Court also made an oral remark, stating that a lawyer representing the Government must be an officer of the Court and should not merely serve as a mouthpiece for the State.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that the defense witnesses were taken to a hotel and pressured to testify against the petitioner. He referenced an affidavit filed by one of the witnesses, detailing the pressure he had faced.

The State, however, categorically denied the allegation, which was not well received by the bench. The Court demanded a clear response on whether the State had taken any steps to investigate the truth of the allegations, rather than simply denying them outright.

"There are documents on record to show that defence witnesses were pressurised. What enquiry have you done?", Justice Oka asked Bharat Singh, Additional Advocate General of MP, who was appearing virtually. AAG simply reiterated the denial of the allegation.

Dissatisfied with the AAG's response, Justice Oka asked, "Should we record that the AAG is not answering our questions?"

AAG stated that many defence witnesses were refusing to appear and that the present affidavit was fabricated. "On what basis you are saying that the affidavit is fabricated? Has any senior police officer enquired? On what basis are you saying this?". The AAG said that the defence witness has not given any such statement before the trial court.

Justice Oka then told the AAG, "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 defence witness is giving a statement that he is pressurised, is it not your duty to enquire?"

"From the way the State is defending this, we think we have to drawn an adverse inference. We will stay the trial and order enquiry by an independent body..Look at the way the AAG is defending. Threatening witnesses is also an offence. Has the State registered any FIR on that allegation?" Justice Oka stated. The AAG then requested for time of two days to respond to the matter by filing documents.

"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 defence 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 enquire 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. Accordingly, further proceedings are stayed. While we say this, it is the duty of the State to ensure that a fair trial is conducted. Fair trial means full opportunity in accordance with law for the accused to defence himself."

Case no. – T.P.(Crl.) No. 1120/2024 Diary No. 58059/2024

Case Title – Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh