Allegations of bias against a judicial officer require substantial proof; mere suspicion is insufficient to justify case transfer under Section 447 of the BNSS.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Sharma, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3, Mr.Arvind Prasad, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

2. The instant petition U/s 447 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been preferred by the petitioner for transfer of a Criminal Trial titled “State Vs. Dileshwar Sahu & Others”, Criminal Special Atrocities Case No. 46/2023 pending before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur (C.G.) (for short, ‘Special Judge’) to any other Competent Court within the District of Raipur or any other competent Court of any other nearby District within the State of Chhattisgarh on the ground that the learned Special Judge is having personal bias against the petitioner and upon his instruction, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

3. Case of the prosecution, if brief, is that the victim / respondent No.3 had lodge a written complaint before Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur, C.G. stating that she got acquainted with accused Parmeshwar Sahu 5 years back while studying LL.B. Course at Raipur, thereafter, they started practicing in Raipur District Court. In the year 2019, the accused Parmeshwar Sahu proposed the prosecutrix for marriage knowing that she is member of scheduled caste and he subjected her to physical relation on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, though the accused Parmeshwar Sahu refused to marry her, but still continued physical intercourse without her consent, due to which she became 9 months pregnant. On the basis of said written complaint, FIR was lodged on 23.06.2023 under Section 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC against accused Parmeshwar Sahu.

4. During investigation statement under Section 164 CrPC of the victim was also recorded on dated 22.07.2023 in which also she narrated the same story and had made further statement against the other accused persons that they have accompanied the prime accused Parmeshwar Sahu and have ride to forcibly administer some poisonous substance in order to kill her. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against accused Dileshwar Sahu S/o Ramnath Sahu on 20.08.2023 under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 511, 34 of IPC and Section 294, 323, 506-B, 313, 342, 417 of IPC. In the said charge-sheet, accused Dileshwar Sahu was shown as arrested accused and Parmeshwar Sahu, Ramnath Sahu and Neha Sahu were shown as absconder. It has been further shown that investigation is pending regarding the role of suspected accused Chandrashekhar Agarwal (present petitioner) in the case. In the meanwhile, the other 3 accused persons, namely, Parmeshwar Sahu, Ramnath Sahu and Neha Sahu were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRA No. 121/2024, CRA 1811/2023 and CRA No. 143/2024 respectively and accused namely Dileshwar Sahu has been granted regular bail in CRA No. 1799/2023. Thereafter, there is no supplementary charge sheet in respect of these accused persons.

5. Apprehending from his arrest, the petitioner has filed anticipatory bail application before the Special Judge on 13.03.2025, which was dismissed on 25.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal being CRA No. 478/2025 challenging his anticipatory bail rejection order, but before hearing of the said anticipatory bail application, the petitioner was a