The main legal point established is that apprehension of injustice must be reasonable and substantiated, and passing of an unfavorable order cannot be a ground for transferring a case.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision under Sections 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 05/08/2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in MJCR No.237/2022 by which the Sessions Judge, Bhind has refused to transfer the case.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a trial is pending in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad in S.T. No. No.92/2021. The Presiding Judge has granted bail to some accused persons, whereas they were not entitled for the same, therefore, the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that he may not get justice from the Court of the Trial Judge and, accordingly, he filed an application under Section 408 of CrPC.

3. Comments of the Presiding Judge were called. It was stated by the Presiding Judge that co-accused Ramjilal, Prashant and Sushant Kaurav were granted bail on the ground that similarly situated persons namely, Ramautar and Deshraj @ Rinku were granted bail by the High Court. It was opined by the Presiding Judge that he has no objection in case, if trial is transferred. The Sessions Judge rejected the application filed under Section 408 of CrPC on the ground that no documentary evidence has been filed by the applicant and the bail has been granted on the basis of bail granted to the co-accused and the allegations are baseless.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Court-below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Sessions Judge, Bhind has not assigned any reason for rejecting the application.

5. The Sessions Judge should have given a finding as to whether the co-accused were granted bail by the Trial Court properly or not. The doctrine of "parity" has already been explained by this Court in the case of Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another by order dated 04.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5870/2021, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cri) No.9149/2021 by order dated 26.11.2021 in the case of Axay Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Without assigning any reason, the Sessions Judge, Bhind has rejected the application filed under Section 408 of CrPC.

6. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that merely because an unfavourable order has been passed, the same cannot be a ground for transfer of the case.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the Sessions Judge, Bhind has directly jumped to the conclusion without assigning any reason appears to be correct. Reasons are the heartbeat of an order. Every finding should be supported by a reason so that the litigant must know as to why he has been denied the relief. The Supreme Court in the case of Tutul Kumari Sen v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2009) 13 SCC 495 has held as under:-

8. " 3. ... This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49] has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. . Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any licence to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well-known saying: 'varying according to the Chancellor's foot'. Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial e