The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of permanent exemption from personal appearance in summons cases, as established in the Bhaskar Industries Limited case, and the correct interpretation of legal provisions related to the issuance of warrants and permanent exemption.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

1. This motion under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) has been laid by the accused for transfer of a criminal complaint under Section 500 RPC filed against her by the respondent in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Srinagar from that court to any other court at Jammu. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent claims to be the Editor-in-Chief of an English daily, namely, 'Rising Kashmir' published from Srinagar. He alleges to have been defamed by the petitioner by the two defamatory and libelous statements posted by her on her Twitter handle, one on 30.07.2016 and the other on 02.12.2016.

2. It is contended by the petitioner, which is evident from Annexure-B to this petition, that the CJM vide order dated 03.12.2016 in the first instance issued bailable warrant against the petitioner for her attendance before the court on 24.12.2016 without, however, assigning any reason in terms of Section 90 of the Code for not issuing the summons. The petitioner caused her appearance before the court through her counsel on 28.01.2017 and filed an application for her permanent exemption from personal appearance before the court and to be represented through her counsel. She relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Limited vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 401. The learned CJM disposed of the application vide order dated 20.03.2017 providing that the petitioner will be exempted from her personal appearance permanently after she will surrender before the court on the next date of hearing, will furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the court and will also furnish an undertaking to the effect that a counsel on her behalf would be present in the court, she will not dispute her identity, will have no objection in taking evidence in her absence and will appear before the court personally in case her statement is needed to be recorded in terms of Section 342 of the Code at a later stage.

3. After the disposal of her application for permanent exemption by the learned CJM vide order dated 20.03.2017, the petitioner has laid this motion for transfer of the case to a court at Jammu. Respondent has filed objections to this application resisting the transfer.

4. The submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, mainly revolved around two grounds for transfer of the case from Srinagar to a court at Jammu; firstly, the old age and ill health of the petitioner and secondly, the petitioner's apprehension that she may not get fair trial before any court in Kashmir valley, having regard to the nature of the tweets for which she is being prosecuted, the surcharged atmosphere in Kashmir valley posing threat to her safety and security and the manner in which learned CJM is conducting proceedings in the case. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner is an old and sick lady, aged 66 years and is suffering from multiple ailments and has undergone a major surgery for removal of a big tumor from her pituitary gland. Learned counsel argued further that the tweets said to have been posted by the petitioner expose her views against entire Media Community operating from Kashmir and her courage to take issue against militants, which may not be liked by the cross section of people in Kashmir and will pose threat to her safety and security in the surcharged atmosphere of Kashmir valley in case she visits Srinagar to face trial before the learned CJM. For the same reason, she may not get any support and protection from the State administration and the services of a counsel there, especially when a brother of the respondent is a sitting Minister in State Government. Learned counsel submitted further that the petitioner's apprehension of not getting fair trial at Srinagar is supported by the manner in which the learned CJM issued bailable warrant against the petitioner in the first instance, tho