Allahabad High Court
Sahil Bajaj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Anil Kumar Ojha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 19 of 2020
Applicant :- Sahil Bajaj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi,Vishesh Rajvanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Saran
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Applicant has filed this Transfer Application to transfer the Criminal Case No. 3225 of 2018 (State v. Sahil Bajaj) arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2018, under Section 420, 406, 504, 506, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras to court of competent jurisdiction in adjoining Districts like Mathura, Ghaziabad, Aligarh, etc.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no. 2 is an influential person having contacts with various powerful persons of District Hathras. Due to the influence of opposite party no. 2, no lawyer is ready to represent the applicant in District Hathras. No lawyer is also being permitted to represent the applicant. Applicant engages counsel of Aligarh which is more expensive. On 17.07.2019, when the applicant was returning after attending the court proceeding, some unknown persons followed him and threatened him. Applicant feeling scared, reported the incident to Superintendent of Police, Hathras vide application dated 18.07.2017. Opposite party no. 2 and his associates are regularly threatening and abusing the applicant. Applicant has reasonable apprehension that he will not get fair trial in District Court Hathras.
Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the transfer application and submitted that the applicant is accused of Case Crime No. 68 of 2018.
Case cannot be transferred on the mere asking of the accused-applicant. Convenience of the applicant who is accused of the case sought to be transferred, is not a ground of transfer of the case from one district to another district.
During course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is suffering from depression and he has suicidal tendency. He drew attention of the Court towards page no. 10-11 of the rejoinder affidavit. Further submitted that in case of dismissal of this application, the applicant may be granted exemption from appearance in the court below on every date, except framing of charge, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and where presence of applicant is absolutely essential.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that on the sole ground of convenience of applicant, case cannot be transferred from one district to another.
In view of the above, application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Transfer Application is dismissed.
However, keeping in view the health condition of the applicant, trial court is directed not to press for appearance of the applicant during trial except for framing of charge, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and delivery of judgment. However, it is clarified that the applicant shall not display slackness in participating the proceedings.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
VPS
