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. 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 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.

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 to transfer S.C. No.102 of 2024 from the file of the I Addit