$~91&96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 9^thApril, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10842/2026 & CRL.M.A.

10843/2026 BALBIR CHAND TIWARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hariharan, Sr. Adv with Dr.

Sushil Kumar, Mr. Manan Verma, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Ms. Mansi Diwakar, Ms. Anshika Kumari, Advocates.

versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP with Mr. Vashishth P Dash, Mr. Abhiyant Singh, Mr. Mayank Tyagi, Advocates.

Mr. Ajay Barman, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Seth, Mr. Karan Buraman, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with Ms Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra, Advocates for R-3.

96 + CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10922/2026 & CRL.M.A.

10923/2026 SUKHMOHINDER SINGH SANDHU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with Ms Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra, Advocates for R-3.

versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP with Mr. Vashishth P Dash, Mr. Abhiyant Singh, Mr. Mayank Tyagi, Advocates.

Mr. Ajay Barman, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Seth, Mr. Karan Buraman, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 02/2019 titled “Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sumedh Singh Saini & others” which arise out of RC No. 2(S)/1994-SIU.V/SIC.

2. The abovesaid case is at the stage of final arguments.

3. When the predecessor Presiding Officer took up the case on 23.09.2025, it directed the parties to first address arguments on the point of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

4. On account of transfer, when the current Presiding Officer took up the matter on 19.12.2025, it also, initially, fixed up the matter for arguments on the point of sanction but later, on 07.01.2026, it opined that the final arguments be addressed comprehensively i.e. on the point of sanction as well as on the merits of the case.

5. This led to some disquiet and fear in the minds of the petitioners.

6. They, somehow, perceived that since there is unexplained overturning of the previous order, they would not get justice and sensing some bias, they prayed for transfer of the pending case to some other Court. Their grievance was that since, earlier, the arguments were to be heard in a „structured and phased manner‟, the above sudden switch has caused uncertainty and apprehension in their minds.

7. They, therefore, prayed for transfer of their case to any other Court and vide composite order dated 17.03.2026 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, their such request has been turned down.

8. Such order is under challenge.

9. Mr. Hariharan and Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned Senior counsel for petitioners submit that the petitioners have highest regard for the judiciary and for the learned Presiding Officer as well and it may not be understood as if they are casting any aspersion. It is contended that the above deviation in the manner of addressing arguments has made them apprehensive.

10. Quite clearly, the apprehension is unfounded, specious and misplaced. 11. Mere fact that, the court, now, wants to hear final arguments in a comprehensive manner would not, by itself, mean anything significant or suggestive of any bias or predetermination of the outcome.

12. Such inconsequential aspects about the manner in which the learned Trial Court desires to hear final arguments, are better left to its wisdom and discretion. Moreover, the answer to the issue of sanction would remain the same - whether it is answered in piecemeal or in a combined manner.

13. The case is very old and was transferred from the State of Haryana to Delhi and the learned Presiding Judge is already in the middle of hearing final arguments and no justifiable reason exists to transfer the cases to some other Court.

14. Learned Senior counsel, relying upon Kanaklata vs. State (NCT