##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.134 of 2025

DATE: 22.12.2025

BETWEEN:

Baira Jalendar @ Jalendhar and others

…..petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana,

at Hyderabad and another

…..Respondents/complainants

ORDER

This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed seeking to

transfer S.C.No.102 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial to any other

competent Court in Karimnagar or Rajanna Sircilla District.

2

SKS,J

Tr.Crl.P.No.134 of 2025

2. Heard Sri B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent – State and Sri T. V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were facing trial in S.C. No. 102 of 2024 before the

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial, and that

although the prosecution evidence had concluded, the

conduct and oral remarks of the Presiding Officer during the

stage of examination under Section 313 CrPC and again at the

stage of arguments clearly indicated a preconceived opinion to

convict the petitioners. He further submitted that the repeated

remarks directing the petitioners to be ready to go to jail

created a reasonable apprehension of bias and denial of a fair

and impartial trial. He contended that the return of the

application filed under Section 311 CrPC on the ground of

maintainability, without registering and adjudicating the same

on merits, was arbitrary and strengthened the petitioners’

apprehension of prejudice and that in order to uphold the

principles of natural justice and the settled law that justice

3

SKS,J

Tr.Crl.P.No.134 of 2025

must not only be done but must also appear to be done, the

case was required to be transferred to a competent court in

Karimnagar or Rajanna Sircilla District, and that continuation

of the trial before the same court would result in grave

prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to

transfer S.C.No.102 of 2024 to any competent Court in

Karimnagar or Rajanna Sircialla District by allowing this

Transfer Criminal Petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 opposed the transfer contending that, except the affidavit

filed by the petitioners/accused, no independent or

supporting material had been placed on record to substantiate

the allegations of bias against the Presiding Officer. He further

submitted that mere oral allegations or apprehensions,

without any cogent proof, could not form the basis for

transferring a sessions case and that the alleged remarks

attributed to the trial Court were bald assertions. He

contended that the return of an application under Section 311

CrPC on the ground of maintainability did not, by itself,

establish prejudice or denial of a fair trial. Therefore, he

prayed the Court to dismiss the Transfer Criminal Petition.

4

SKS,J

Tr.Crl.P.No.134 of 2025

5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel on either side and upon a careful perusal of the

material available on record, it appears that the grievance of

the petitioners was primarily founded on the alleged oral

remarks made by the trial Court on two occasions, indicating

that the petitioners would be sent to jail, coupled with the

return of the application filed under Section 311 CrPC as not

maintainable. Without expressing any opinion on the

correctness of the said allegations, this Court is of the view

that, in order to dispel any reasonable apprehension in the

minds of the petitioners and to ensure that justice not only is

done but also appears to be done, it would be appropriate to

transfer the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, and without causing any prejudice to respondent

No.2, this Court deems it fit