1. Heard.

2. In this petition filed u/s 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, the petitioners for transfer of criminal case bearing Sessions Trial No. 57/2017 pending before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar to any other Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur or nearby area in the State.

3. The petition is preferred by one Sunita Saluja wife of late Shri Jashwant Saluja who died in police custody on 09.04.2017. As per the case of prosecution on 09.04.2017 at about 7 p.m., the deceased Jashwant Saluja was travelling on a motorcycle with triple riding. When they were stopped, certain altercation started with the Police officers and the vehicle was taken into custody and little scuffle took place between the police officers and the friends of deceased. Subsequently the deceased Jashwant Saluja was taken to police station, City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar and was kept in confinement. When the family members of deceased after hearing the news went to the police station they saw that deceased was brutally beaten by police persons and eventually succumbed to the injuries on 09.04.2017 itself in the District Hospital Baloda Bazar. The FIR was registered and Crime No.159/2017 was lodged under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. On the basis of FIR, the Police Inspector and the Constables were arrested and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, an application was preferred by the wife of deceased Smt. Sunita, petitioner herein, seeking permission to engage a counsel by her to argue the case on her behalf in addition to the counsel appointed by the prosecution. The said application was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner may submit final arguments at the time of final adjudication. Before this Court certain affidavits of the witnesses have been filed that the witnesses were pressurized to give evidence in a way which favours the accused.

4. Mr. Prakash Tiwari and Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that looking to the manner in which the witnesses are being pressurized, there is every likelihood of tampering the evidence of witnesses and the apprehension looms large that the victim would not get opportunity to place her case properly as she would be restricted to lead evidence before the Court. He submits that undue haste was shown by one of the constable who has been arrayed as respondent No.8 in this petition and despite the fact that there being no order for bailable warrant from the Court, the bailable warrants were issued to the witness at his own instance. It is contended that it would show the nature of favouritism shown by the prosecution agency. He has further gone through the affidavit of one Dilip Kurree and submits that particular mobile number is mentioned wherein he received phone calls and he was pressurized not to give evidence against the accused. Thereafter, the ASI Ishwar Toppo who was posted in P.S. Citi Kotwali, Baloda Bazar along-with other 3 police officers went to the house of witness and pressurized him to give a favourable statement in favour of the accused. He, therefore, submits that under the circumstances, the Sessions Trial which is pending before the Second Addl. Sessions judge, Baloda Bazar may be transferred to any other Sessions Court.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel and also counsel for the accused vehemently oppose the arguments. It is contended by the State that false averments have been made by the petitioner as the witness whose affidavit has been filed has been examined before the Court and nothing was divulged. The counsels further submit that even the petitioner has been given right to place the final arguments in the form of written submission at the end of the trial, therefore, no prejudice is caused.

6. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for respondent no.4 would submit that the statement of the witnesses would demonstrate the fact that no pressure was exerted on the witnesses, conseque