IMPORTANT POINT
A mere apprehension of bias is not sufficient to warrant the transfer of a trial; substantial evidence of potential influence on the judicial process is required.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 9 as also Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in this case is seeking transfer of the Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2001 arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 277 of 1994 instituted for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the trial was going on in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII. It is submitted that the accused persons filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur in administrative side for sending the records to some other court for fair trial.

4. It is further submitted that during trial the prosecution filed an application to summon some left over accused. The court, finding sufficient materials summoned them. Thereafter, the prosecution had filed an application for recalling the entire evidence so that the case concerning the newly summoned persons be brought on the record. The learned Fast Track Court rejected the said application. The main ground for rejection was that the newly summoned accused persons filed an application supported by an affidavit that they were adopting the evidence already adduced in the case and were not in favour of summoning the prosecution witnesses who had already been examined. The order of learned Fast Track Court was challenged in Cr. Misc. No. 11043 of 2010 but the same was dismissed. The petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court also but the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and learned Fast Track Court as the accused were not going to be prejudiced and they had filed an application adopting the evidence already adduced in the case. The case was, thereafter transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII.

5. It is submitted that although the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for recalling the order in the administrative side and sending it to some other court, on the application filed by the accused persons challenging the order in revision, the learned Sessions Judge recalled the case from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII and kept it with him. On account of certain developments, the petitioner has developed reasonable apprehension that he may not get fair and impartial trial before the learned Sessions Judge.

6. Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel has placed before this Court the statements made in paragraphs ‘15’, ‘16’ and ‘17’ of the present application. It is submitted that one of the accused in this case is Arshad Hussain @ Dadu. He was earlier attached with the learned Sessions Judge as a Peon and he retired some two years back but he is too close to the Sessions Judge and is always seen going to his office in his room.

7. It is further submitted that one Sagir Ahmad was earlier posted as a Peshkar attached to learned Sessions Judge and retired some time back in March 2023. His service has been extended and is still continuing as Peshkar. He is maternal uncle of Arshad Hussain @ Dadu and Anshar Ahmad. It is submitted that all the accused persons are closely related to each other. The Peskhar Sagir Ahmad is taking interest in the case and ignoring parvi which is being done by the prosecution. He even sometimes scolds the persons taking interest on behalf of the prosecution.

8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that an eye witness, namely, Faiz Ahmad was not examined in this case and when the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 requesting his examination, the learned District Judge, Ara rejected it. Against this order dated 05.07.2023, the prosecution moved the Hon’ble High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 60446 of 2023 which is pending herein. Learned Senior Counsel submits th