John Michael Cunha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

2. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Before the Trial Court, petitioner moved an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order sheet dated 18.01.2017 and points out that on 18.07.2017 the learned Sessions Judge posted the matter for pronouncement of the order at 3.00 p.m., but the order came to be pronounced earlier to 3.00 p.m. The order sheet reads as follows:

'The accused called out, absent, when called out at 1.45 p.m. Hence, NBW issue along with notice to surety by 07.02.2017?

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the same day counsel for the accused moved an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., but the said application was put up only on 19.01.2017 and the NBW was recalled. Thereafter, the case was posted on 07.02.2017 and on that day the accused was absent and exemption application was filed, but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said exemption petition and issued NBW against the accused.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he regularly appeared before the Court all through out, but on 07.02.2017, as he had to take his mother for treatment to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru, he could not appear before the court. Under the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge could have allowed the exemption application. According to the petitioner that this act on the part of the learned Sessions Judge has given rise to an apprehension in the mind of petitioner/accused that he would not get fair justice at the hands of the Court.

6. In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:

(1) 1990 Cri. L.J. 64 (Budhya and others v. State of U.P.)

(2) AIR 1957 Supreme Court 425 (Manak Lal, Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and others)

(3) AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1418 (Gurcharn Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan)

7. The only question to be considered is whether the petitioner has made out sufficient ground for withdrawal and transfer of the case from the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur to any of the Additional District and Sessions Court at Tumkur?

8. Section 407 of Cr.P.C., which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases, reads as under:

"1. Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-

(a). that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or

(b). that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or

(c). that an order under this section is required by an any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or his expedient for the ends of justice.

it may order-

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;

(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;

(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or

(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.' ?

9. In the instant case, the only ground on which the petitioner has sought for transfer of the case is that the application moved by his counsel seeking exemption for his appearance on 07.02.2017 was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the petitioner it indicates prejudice or bias against the petitioner. I am not inclined to accept this submission. The order sheet reveals that no sooner the application was moved by the petitioner for recall of NBW, the trial Court has entertained the said applic