Transfer of trial should only be considered when fair justice is in peril and when there is a well-substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively, and without bias.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for transfer of the proceedings in Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 37/2019 pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia to any other Court in Asansol. The Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 37/2019 against the petitioner is registered under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 in Neturia P.S. Case No. 92/2019 dated 27.07.2019. The case is fixed for evidence.

2. There are 9 witnesses including the victim.

3. The petitioner/accused’s (in Sessions Case) wife has registered the present case being no. 135/2019 dated 17.11.2019 under Sections 341/147/148/323/325/379 of IPC against the victim’s (in Sessions Case) father and others alleging assault and receiving bleeding injuries and theft of his personal belonging.

4. Thus apprehending further attack the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

5. Injury report at page 42 of the case diary in Neturia P.S. Case No. 135/2019 dated 17.11.2019 is in respect of an incident dated 27.07.2019. Neturia P.S. Case No. 92/2019 (Sessions Case) in which the petitioner is an accused, is also dated 27.07.2019.

6. The said injury report is dated 21.02.2020 (six months after the alleged incident), in respect of an alleged incident on 27.07.2019.

7. The said report relating to the incident dated 27.07.2019 states:-

“No weapon used”. On examination the doctor found “Alcoholic smell from mouth C multiple abrasion over Rt side of forehead, chin, chest (left side), Nail scratch mark over chest (left side)”.

[Type of injury:- Simple].

8. The written complaint in Neturia P.S. Case No. 135/19 dated 17.11.2019 (present case) is also in respect of the incident (Sessions Case) which occurred on 27.07.2019.

9. Thus it is a case of case and a counter case.

10. But the counter case has been filed after almost four months.

11. The injury report (page 42 of case diary) is dated 21.02.2020 i.e. 6 months after the alleged incident and 3 months after registration of the case on 17.11.2019.

12. Thus the apprehension of the petitioner praying for transfer is totally unfounded, as there is no such incident (subsequent) to support the apprehension of the petitioner.

13. The petitioner has prayed for transfer of trial to the district of which he is a resident.

14. The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors., Transfer Petition (CRL.) Nos. 534-536 of 2019, on 16th October, 2020, held:-

“17. In Captain Amrinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260, Justice P. Sathasivam, as he then was, speaking for the three judge Bench, on the issue of transfer of criminal cases, observed as follows: -

“48. The analysis of all the materials, the transfer of the case as sought for, at this stage, is not only against the interest of prosecution but also against the interest of the other accused persons, the prosecution witnesses and the convenience of all concerned in the matter.

* * * *

51. We have already pointed out that a mere allegation that there is an apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case alone does not suffice. Considering the totality of all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that in a secular, democratic Government, governed by the rule of law, the State of Punjab is responsible for ensuring free, fair and impartial trial to the accused, notwithstanding the nature of the accusations made against them.

In the case on hand, the apprehension entertained by the petitioners cannot be construed as reasonable one and the case cannot be transferred on a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done.”

18. Let us now examine another precedent on transfer of criminal cases. In Nahar Singh Yadav & Others vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 307, Justice D.K. Jain writing for the three Judge Bench discussed the scope of transfer under Section 406 CrPC in the