A petitioner is entitled to a transfer of a case if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension that he will not get a fair and impartial trial and that this apprehension is reasonable in the circumstances alleged.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition u/s. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the transfer of Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1983 (State v. Babulal and 8 others) from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge Sheopur Kalan, District Morena, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in the same district.

( 2 ) THE facts, relevant for disposal of this transfer petition, are as follows : s. O. , P. S. Sheopur-kalan has put up a charge-sheet against as many as 9 accused persons (Respdt. Nos. 2 to 10) who are facing charges in the trial court in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code in regard to the alleged violence said to have taken place on the morning of 12-2-1983 at village Premshar in P. S. Shebpur Kalan, resulting into as many as 7 injuries to petitioner Shambhoo Dayal and the murders of his father Bajranglal and uncle Prahlad. Prior to the present petition for transfer of the case, petitioner Shambhoo Dayal had earlier filed another similar petition (Cr. Misc. Case No. 938/83), which was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court under the Order dated 28-3-1984, a photostat copy of which finds place in the record. Admittedly, the accused named Kesharilal and Ramnarayan, were earlier released on bail by the trial Court. The main grounds urged in the previous transfer petition were to the effect that subsequent to their release on bail, the accused persons had sold part of their landed property for the amounts of Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-; that they were seen visiting the residence of the learned Additional Sessions Judge; that subsequent thereto they tried to force a settlement on petitioner Shambhoo Dayal and declared that if he did not do so, no harm would result to them by virtue of the trial, since they had won over the Judge. In the report filed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of the allegations, he vehemently denied the same as false. Relying on that report, as also the circumstances pertinent to the allegations, the Single Bench of this Court rejected the transfer petition under its Order dated 28-3-1984.

( 3 ) THE allegations made in the earlier transfer petition have been repeated in the present petition, but the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M. M. Kaushik frankly conceded that they could not be gone into again in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition on merits. The fresh grounds urged in the present petition for transfer of the case are to the effect that while in course of the trial, petitioner Shambhoo Dayal appeared as a witness before the trial Court on 14-6-1984. Upon sighting him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri S. K. Tripathi stated to the effect - (2) The learned Judge issued non-bailable warrants against Rampyari and Geeta Bai, respectively the mother and sister of the petitioner, cited as prosecution witnesses, who were produced in custody before the trial Court on 29-6-1984, but their application for release on bail was refused by the Judge and they were sent to jail for their production as witnesses on the date fixed in the case for recording the remaining evidence. In view of the circumstances described above, a real apprehension had arisen in the mind of petitioner Shambhoo Dayal that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the case, in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur Kalan, and, accordingly, he sought the transfer of the case to some other court of competent jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that prior to the present transfer petition, petitioner Shambhoo Dayal has made two transfer petitions before the sessions Judge and one before this Court, seeking the transfer of the case, on the grounds summarised above, all of which have been rejected. It having been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds urged in the previous transfer petition are not reagitated, in view of the disposal of the earlier pet