Witness Protection Act Available; Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Bid to Transfer Murder Trial from Dehradun to Haridwar

The High Court of Uttarakhand refused to transfer a Section 302 trial, holding that statutory witness protection under the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020 was the proper remedy.

Justice Siddhartha Sah, sitting singly at the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, on 2 July 2026 dismissed a criminal transfer application filed by Rakesh Banwal, the complainant and a prosecution witness in State of Uttarakhand v. Aditya Tomar. Banwal had sought to move Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2022 — arising from FIR No. 109 of 2022 and involving charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act — from the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun to any court of competent jurisdiction in District Haridwar. The bench held that the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020 already provides a mechanism to address the very threats Banwal described, and that his own evidence as PW1 had already been recorded, leaving no ground to disturb the trial's seat.

The Threat Allegations Behind the Transfer Plea

Banwal's affidavit in support of the transfer application set out a pattern of intimidation. He alleged that the accused Aditya Tomar and his family, described as persons of criminal background, had on multiple occasions threatened him and his family with murder if they continued to participate in the prosecution.

The situation escalated, according to the application, on 10 February 2023, when an eyewitness was being examined inside the court campus at Dehradun. A group described as anti-social elements allegedly confronted Banwal face to face with threats at that moment. Banwal informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun of the incident on 13 February 2023 and also approached local police. His application records that the local police's oral response was that he should himself form a group and carry a weapon — a response that plainly gave him no institutional protection.

On that basis, Banwal filed Criminal Transfer Application No. 8 of 2023 under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to relocate the trial to Haridwar.

Trial Court's Report and the State of the Evidence

By order dated 8 May 2023, the High Court directed its Registry to call for a report from the District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun regarding the status of Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2022. In response, the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun submitted a report dated 25 May 2023.

The report stated that the trial was ongoing, with 7 June 2023 fixed for prosecution evidence. It confirmed that the evidence of the complainant Rakesh Bansal had been recorded on 9 January 2023, making him PW1. Two other witnesses — Km. Divya and Sub Inspector Kavita Nath — had already been examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively.

Critically, the trial court's report noted that neither PW1 Rakesh Bansal nor any of the other examined witnesses had brought any threat to the court's attention at the time their evidence was recorded. This observation was material to the High Court's reasoning.

The Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020

Justice Siddhartha Sah directed attention to the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020, a State enactment that establishes a framework for protecting witnesses in criminal proceedings. Section 2(i) of the Act defines “protection measures” as measures taken by the Competent Authority or court so that witnesses may give evidence without fear for their life, reputation, or that of their family members.

Section 4 of the Act provides for the filing of a witness protection application before the Competent Authority. Section 5 requires the Competent Authority, upon receiving such an application, to call for a threat analysis report from the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 further enables the SSP or SP to pass an interim protection order when an imminent threat requires urgent action, while reserving the final order for the Competent Authority.

The bench's reading of these provisions led directly to its conclusion: the Act had already anticipated exactly the kind of threat that Banwal described, and the proper course was to engage that mechanism rather than uproot the trial.

Why the Court Declined to Transfer

Justice Sah identified two independent reasons to refuse the transfer. First, Banwal's own evidence as PW1 had already been recorded on 9 January 2023, meaning the primary purpose for which transfer might have been sought — enabling the complainant-witness to depose without fear — had already been fulfilled. Disrupting the trial at that stage would serve no corresponding purpose.

Second, and more broadly, the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020 provides a dedicated statutory avenue for any witness in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2022 who faces threats. The court held there was no reason to interfere in the matter, given that this protection framework was already in place.

The bench left the door open for future action. It observed that if any other witness to be examined in the trial faces a threat, both that witness and Banwal would be free to file an appropriate application before the Competent Authority or court under the Act. The concerned court or Competent Authority would then be at liberty to grant protection as provided for under the Act.

Order

Criminal Transfer Application No. 8 of 2023 was dismissed. The learned Brief Holder for the State gave an undertaking to communicate the order to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun.