Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25557

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J
Ravi Basavaraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100680 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. M. Sheelavant
For the Respondents: Gangadhar J. M., Abhishek Malipatil, Dayanand Sangreshi, Ramesh B. Chigari

A transfer of criminal proceedings is not warranted merely due to dissatisfaction with judicial orders or refusal of adjournments. A party must prove a reasonable apprehension of actual bias. Courts have a mandate to conduct trials expeditiously, prevent witness intimidation, and appoint legal aid when counsel obstructs the judicial process.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 407 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 447 - Transfer of criminal proceedings - Expediting trial - Grounds for seeking transfer must demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of fair trial rather than dissatisfaction with judicial procedure or refusal of adjournments. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

(B) Trial Procedure - Adjournments - Adjournments should not be granted to suit the convenience of counsel unless exceptional grounds exist - Trial court has discretion to appoint amicus curiae when counsel fails to cooperate or attempts to stall proceedings. (Paras 35, 41, 48)

(C) Witness Protection - Courts have a duty to ensure witnesses are not intimidated - Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice and must be protected from muscle power and coercion to ensure fair trial and constitutional compliance. (Paras 49, 65, 66)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who are accused in a murder case, filed a petition to transfer their trial from the existing court, alleging that the presiding judge was biased, had abused defense counsel, failed to provide fair trial opportunities, and was acting with prejudice to secure conviction, while also citing inconvenience related to the counsel's travel.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the proceedings were conducted adhering to mandatory legal requirements. The allegations of bias were found to be unsubstantiated attempts to protract the trial. The judge's actions, including refusing adjournments and appointing a defense counsel from the legal aid system, were consistent with established law to ensure expeditious trial, especially when defense counsel refused to cooperate and intimidated court proceedings.

Issues: Whether the petitioners established a lack of fair trial or judicial bias sufficient to warrant the transfer of the criminal proceedings to another court, and whether the conduct of the defense counsel warranted legal and disciplinary action.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of a case requires proof of a reasonable apprehension of injustice. Mere procedural rulings, such as the refusal of frequent adjournments requested for counsel's personal convenience or the appointment of legal aid counsel upon non-cooperation, do not constitute bias or denial of fair trial. Courts must actively prevent the intimidation of witnesses and the obstruction of justice, using available legal mechanisms to ensure trials proceed expeditiously.

Result: Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-; initiation of disciplinary and contempt proceedings ordered against the defense counsel.

Table of Content
1. petition for transfer of criminal proceedings based on alleged procedural unfairness. (Para 1 , 2)
2. requirement for fair trial, right to counsel, and judicial conduct standards. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short), read with Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short), by accused Nos.1 to 9 and 12 praying to transfer the Sessions Case in S.C.No.5/2026, pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, to any other Sessions Court having jurisdiction to try or to any other Court which this Court thinks fit.

I) FACTS TO CONSIDER IN THIS PETITION:

2. It is the brief case of the prosecution that the petitioners/accused have committed murder of the deceased Venkatesh and facing charges for the offence punishable under Section 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 49, 56, 61(2), 103(1), 109(1), 249(B), 238, 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further case of the prosecution that after compliance of all legal formalities, the trial has begun and all the charge sheet witnesses have been examined and posted the matter for examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C./under Section 351 of BNSS and at that moment this petition is filed praying to transfer the Sessions Case to any other Sessions Court in the same Sessions Division. The petitioners/accused are in Judicial Custody.

II) GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PETITION:

3. The above stated petitioners/accused have raised various grounds in the petition for seeking transfer claiming that the petitioners have not committed offence as alleged against them. The petitioners have fundamental rights to choose their advocate of their choice. It is the main ground that the learned Sessions Judge has abused the petitioners’ counsel and discharging vakalath of the petitioners advocates and not providing the petitioners an opportunity to engage advocate of their choice and appointing District Legal Aid Defence Counsel (‘DLADC’ for short) to cross examine the witnesses on the same date is not a fair trial. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has not uploaded the depositions of the witnesses and therefore the learned Sessions Judge has acted arbitrarily. Further raised ground that the learned Sessions Judge is bent upon to convict the petitioners at any event and therefore the leaned Sessions Judge has prejudiced himself against the petitioners/accused.

4. Further raised ground that the petitioners have engaged an advocate from out of the Sessions Division/District and compelling the advocate coming from other District and traveling day to day is causing inconvenience to them. Therefore, trial is not fixed at the convenience of the advocates. Further raised ground that fixing dates of trial were at whims and fancies of the Presiding Officer of the Court, but has not taken convenience and confidence of the advocate of the accused. Further raised ground that the Presiding Officer has addressed the petitioners advocates while conducting Sessions trial has called them as goondas, is nothing but arbitrary and showing prejudiced mind of the Presiding Officer. Therefore, vitiates the entire proceedings and contentions. Further raised ground that the Presiding Officer/Sessions Judge is bent upon to convict the petitioners without conducting fair trial and trying to gain media publicity at the cost of life of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have shown their apprehension that there is no fair trial.

5. Further raised ground that mere reasonable apprehension is enough to transfer the case as per the judgment of this Court reported in Crl.L.J. 1975 page 744.

6. Further raised ground that the entire order sheet discloses that the petitioners have been falsely charged and would not get justice at the hands of the present Court, in which the Sessions trial is going on. Therefore, prays for transfer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25557

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHanchate Sanjeevkumar, JRavi Basavaraj – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentCRIMINAL PETITION NO.100680 OF 2026

Cases Referred (5)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J
Ravi Basavaraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100680 OF 2026