Mere apprehension of injustice is not sufficient for transferring a criminal case; there must be reasonable apprehension that the trial would be seriously undermined and justice would not be done.

ORDER:

I have heard both sides.

2. This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code (For short “Cr.P.C.”), seeking to transfer S.C.No.55 of 2013 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, to any other court other than Krishna District or to Guntur District.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the 5th witness in S.C.No.55 of 2013 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein respondent Nos.2 to 16 are arrayed as an accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 & 10/ A-4, A-5, A-6, A-8 & A-10 are died.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the father of the deceased and filed the present petition due to the attitude of the Presiding Officer of the VIII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is a reasonable apprehension that he may not get justice in the present Court, presided by the Presiding Officer, as he is speaking irrelevant and making prejudicial comments from the bench addressing the prosecution and also the defense counsel. The petitioner also filed additional affidavit narrating the incidents which occurred in the Court during the trial wherein it is stated that the petitioner engaged a private counsel, whom the Presiding Officer not allowed to represent on the ground that the Public Prosecutor is already representing for prosecution. He prays to allow the petition.

7. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that when the Presiding Officer was about to commence the trial on 20.06.2022, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant sought time as P.W.2 was absent and not filed any petition for filing photographs and the Presiding Officer insisted the parties to proceed with the trial, but the petitioner twisted the words of the Presiding Officer and filed the present petition with false averments. He prays to dismiss the petition.

8. Mr. Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased, whose son was brutally murdered by accused in S.C.No.55 of 2013, engaged a private counsel to put-forth the prosecution case in effective manner, but the Presiding Officer made unnecessary comments which caused apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he may not get justice in the said Court. He would further submit that the presence of judicial bias can be a ground for seeking a transfer of criminal case. He relied on the following precedential law:

a. State of Punjab/appellant vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & others/respondents, (2011) 14 SCC 770, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the judicial bias, mode and norms for determination of the judicial bias at Page No.789 at Paragraph No.24, which reads as under:

“There may be a case where allegations may be made against a Judge of having bias/prejudice at any stage of the proceedings or after the proceedings are over. There may be some substance in it or it may be made for ulterior purpose or in a pending case to avoid the Bench if a party apprehends that judgment may be delivered against him. Suspicion or bias disables an official from acting as an adjudicator. Further, if such allegation is made without any substance, it would be disastrous to the system as a whole, for the reason, that it casts doubt upon a Judge who has no personal interest in the outcome of the controversy.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the judicial bias vitiates the proceedings and that there is a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias affects the proceedings become forum non judice. He prays to allow the petition.

10. Mr. Nithin Krishna, learned counsel representing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3, 7, 11 to 14, would submit that the petitioner filed this peti