The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the Sessions Trial arising out of. Case instituted for the offenses alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, held that mere apprehension expressed by the petitioner at this stage when the case is fixed for judgment cannot be a valid ground to transfer the trial of the case from Bhojpur district to another district in the State of Bihar.
Brief Facts:
Earlier, the trial was going on in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is submitted that the accused persons filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge on the administrative side for sending the records to some other court for a fair trial. During the trial, the prosecution filed an application to summon some leftover accused. The court, finding sufficient materials summoned them. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application for recalling the entire evidence so that the case concerning the newly summoned persons be brought on the record. The learned Fast Track Court rejected the said application. The main ground for rejection was that the newly summoned accused persons filed an application supported by an affidavit that they were adopting the evidence already adduced in the case and were not in favor of summoning the prosecution witnesses who had already been examined.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the Learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for recalling the order on the administrative side and sending it to some other court, on the application filed by the accused persons challenging the order in revision, the Learned Sessions Judge recalled the case from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII and kept it with him. On account of certain developments, the petitioner has developed reasonable apprehension that he may not get a fair and impartial trial before the learned Sessions Judge.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted one of the accused, namely, Arshad Hussain @ Dadu was a Peon in the court of Learned Sessions Judge who retired in the year 2018. It is submitted that a Class IV employee like Arshad Hussain @ Dadu cannot influence a judicial officer in the rank of District Judge and as such, the allegation that because he was earlier working as a Peon in the court, the learned Sessions Judge is not likely to render justice cannot be believed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that one of the accused in this case happened to be a Peon, who, according to O.P. No. 9 retired in the year 2018. There is no material before this Court to take a view that he is in touch with the District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, and is in a position to influence the course of justice. So far as Sagir Ahmad is concerned, who is said to be Peshkar of the learned Sessions Judge, it is stated in the counter affidavit of O.P. No. 9 that he is not related to any of the accused.
The Court observed that mere apprehension expressed by the petitioner at this stage when the case is fixed for judgment cannot be a valid ground to transfer the trial of the case from Bhojpur district to another district in the State of Bihar.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the petition has no merit.
Case Title: Saif Ahmad v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78798 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Y.C. Verma
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Fahimuddin
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
