1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.

2. Heard Finally with consent of parties.

3. This is an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The applicant is an accused in Criminal Case No.349 of 2002 before the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. She is facing trial under various Sections such as 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of the trial, it is alleged that, she had made several types of applications which were rejected by the learned Magistrate and she apprehends that the Magistrate is prejudiced against her and she may not, therefore, get justice at his hands. She, therefore, had moved an application before the Sessions Judge for transfer of the said criminal case. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer. Since the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer, the accused has approached this court.

5. I have heard Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the non-applicants.

6. The applicant/accused attributes bias to the learned Magistrate. It is the settled proposition of law that justice must not only be done but seen to have been done. However, when a transfer of a case is sought on ground of bias, it must be shown that the apprehension of the accused that he will not get justice is reasonable. Not any and every apprehension in the mind of accused can be ground for transfer. It is, therefore, necessary for applicant to place before the court the facts which give rise to such an apprehension so as to enable the court to determine if it is reasonable.

7. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the applicant/accused, contended that the first such reason is the rejection of the application of the accused/applicant to provide legible copies to the accused. He submitted that inspite of passing an order directing prosecution to supply the copies, the learned Magistrate rejected the application and accused was required to approach the court of Sessions. He submitted that even after the court of Sessions Passed the order, the copies were not supplied. Here, it has to be borne in mind that it is the duty of the prosecution to supply the copy and the blame cannot be put at the door of the court. The learned counsel for the prosecution, on the other hand, submitted that the grievance is unjustified. He submitted that firstly the court had passed an order on Exh.26 to supply the copies on 8/5/2006. There was, therefore, already an order and unnecessarily second application for supply of the copies was made. It is apparent from the pleadings of the applicant in this petition that the court had already passed an order for supply of the copies long back when the second application was rejected. Further it may be mentioned that the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in the year 1999 and right from 1999 to 2006, the applicant did not make any grievance that the copies were not legible.

8. The next grievance made is in respect of issue of nonbailable warrant against the applicant/accused. He submitted that unnecessarily warrant was issued against the applicant and this further shows the prejudice in the mind of the court. Shri Joshi, learned counsel, submitted that on the date the warrant was issued, neither the lawyer nor the accused was present and court was, therefore, justified in issuing the warrant. The record shows neither of them was present before the court and court was left with no other alternative but to issue a warrant. In no case, therefore, the order can be faulted with. In fact, it appears that the court had issued a warrant because the accused had left the country without seeking permission of the court. It is in that context, the order refusing to cancel the warrant was passed and such a judicial order could not be in fact a ground to make any grievance against a judge to show that he is prejudiced.

9. Mr.Khirsagar, learned counsel, then contended that the accused wanted justice Kazi's report to be pl