1. This is an application for transfer of the criminal trial bearing No. 199/2006, State of C.G. Vs. Nirmal Chand Kothari and another which is pending before C.J.M. Rajnandgaon.

2. The brief facts of the case is that non-applicant No. 2, Jitendra Vaishnav is a practicing lawyer at Rajnandgaon court. As a member of District Bar Association, Rajnandgaon he lodged a complaint at Kotwali Police Station, Rajnandgaon against the present applicants and on that report the crime was registered under Section 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner. A1ter the investigation by the Police a charge sheet was filed on 25/07/2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Rajnandgaon under Section 294 & 506 of IPC. It is submission of the applicants that before submission of such charge sheet and during the course of investigation a meeting was convened by the Bar Association Rajnandgaon which was steered at the behest of non-applicant No. 3 and on that meeting a resolution was passed by Bar Association that no member of the Bar Association Rajnandgaon will defend the applicants in the criminal case for which report was made. This is the core issue involved in the matter as to whether such restraint can be upheld and justified? Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Shri Rakesh Thakur submits that there had been no incident had taken place like such, however he submits that there are number of cases are pending against the applicants in the court of Rajnandgaon which is numbering as many as more than 35 or more. He further submits that the resolution which was passed was of year 2006 and the present order sheet do not reflect such restraint was the cause to restraint the Advocate to appear on behalf of the applicants so to defend them in criminal trial.

3. He further submits and invited the attention of the court to order sheet dated 10/08/2006 and tried to demonstrate the conduct of the applicants was not above suspicion and went through the order sheet so as to demonstrate that the learned trial court has also observed that the way the applicants behaved before the trial court it purports that the clerk of the court had written the bail bond were accepted though it was not actually done. For this the clerk was given a warning by the court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

5. The applicants referred to an affidavit which is sworn by Yogeshwar Das Vaishnav, Advocate r/o of Rajnandgaon who was defending the applicant. Affidavit is dated 10/06/2013. In such affidavit at para 3 it is categorically stated by the counsel on oath that on 23/11/12 that he filed an application for personal exemption of the applicants (his clients) on the ground that because the applicants were to attend some bereavement out side the city and therefore, on their instruction he had filed an application for exemption of the applicants for appearance in the court. On the date itself he had also scribed his signature on the order sheet on it's margin. He further has stated if the Bar Association had taken any decision on that date he was not aware of it. He has further stated that when he had filed the application and it was made known to the respondent No. 2, Jitendra Vaishnav and the other witnesses then he was pressurized and cornered to take back such application by certain members of the bar. He has further stated that since he was pressurized by members of the bar, he had to take back such application and the signature in the order sheet was also scrap off. He has further stated that on such basis since application was taken back and withdrawn, the learned court below had to issue the arrest warrant against the applicants. In order to verify such statement the order sheet dated 23/11/12 was also perused by this court. The order sheet purports that the learned court below had issued the arrest warrant by canceling the bail bond for non appearance of the applicants. Interestingly enoug