[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Balbir Chand Tiwari vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors on 9 April, 2026
$~91&96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 9thApril, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10842/2026 & CRL.M.A.
10843/2026
BALBIR CHAND TIWARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hariharan, Sr. Adv with Dr.
Sushil Kumar, Mr. Manan Verma,
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Ms. Mansi
Diwakar, Ms. Anshika Kumari,
Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP with
Mr. Vashishth P Dash, Mr. Abhiyant
Singh, Mr. Mayank Tyagi,
Advocates.
Mr. Ajay Barman, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Varun Seth, Mr. Karan
Buraman, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr.
Sarthak Malhotra, Advocates for R-3.
96
+ CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10922/2026 & CRL.M.A.
10923/2026
SUKHMOHINDER SINGH SANDHU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr.
Sarthak Malhotra, Advocates for R-3.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP with
Mr. Vashishth P Dash, Mr. Abhiyant
Singh, Mr. Mayank Tyagi,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 1
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:13.04.2026
10:43:48
Advocates.
Mr. Ajay Barman, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Varun Seth, Mr. Karan
Buraman, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 02/2019 titled
"Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sumedh Singh Saini & others" which
arise out of RC No. 2(S)/1994-SIU.V/SIC.
2. The abovesaid case is at the stage of final arguments.
3. When the predecessor Presiding Officer took up the case on
23.09.2025, it directed the parties to first address arguments on the point of
sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
4. On account of transfer, when the current Presiding Officer took up the
matter on 19.12.2025, it also, initially, fixed up the matter for arguments on
the point of sanction but later, on 07.01.2026, it opined that the final
arguments be addressed comprehensively i.e. on the point of sanction as
well as on the merits of the case.
5. This led to some disquiet and fear in the minds of the petitioners.
6. They, somehow, perceived that since there is unexplained overturning
of the previous order, they would not get justice and sensing some bias, they
prayed for transfer of the pending case to some other Court. Their grievance
was that since, earlier, the arguments were to be heard in a „structured and
phased manner‟, the above sudden switch has caused uncertainty and
apprehension in their minds.
7. They, therefore, prayed for transfer of their case to any other Court
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 2
and vide composite order dated 17.03.2026 passed by learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Rouse
Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, their such request has been turned
down.
8. Such order is under challenge.
9. Mr. Hariharan and Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned Senior counsel for
petitioners submit that the petitioners have highest regard for the judiciary
and for the learned Presiding Officer as well and it may not be understood as
if they are casting any aspersion. It is contended that the above deviation in
the manner of addressing arguments has made them apprehensive.
10. Quite clearly, the apprehension is unfounded, specious and misplaced.
11. Mere fact that, the court, now, wants to hear final arguments in a
comprehensive manner would not, by itself, mean anything significant or
suggestive of any bias or predetermination of the outcome.
12. Such inconsequential aspects about the manner in which the learned
Trial Court desires to hear final arguments, are better left to its wisdom and
discretion. Moreover, the answer to the issue of sanction would remain the
same - whether it is answered in piecemeal or in a combined manner.
13. The case is very old and was transferred from the State of Haryana to
Delhi and the learned Presiding Judge is already in the middle of hearing
final arguments and no justifiable reason exists to transfer the cases to some
other Court.
14. Learned Senior counsel, relying upon Kanaklata vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Others: 2015 6 SCC 617, contend that there can be certain
situations where the observations made by the Court might create a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of litigant. The situation in the
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 3
abovesaid case was, however, totally different. Therein, the accused had
been charge-sheeted for offences under Section 323/354 and also under the
relevant provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act). The Concerned Sessions Court, after
hearing arguments on charge, discharged the accused for offences under
SC&ST Act and remanded the matter to the concerned magisterial Court for
consideration for other offences. It also, however, made certain observations
about the alleged misuse of the provisions of SC&ST Act by unscrupulous
elements and had also made certain suggestions for remedying the same.
The abovesaid „discharge order‟ was challenged in High Court and while
allowing the revision petition, High Court directed the learned Trial Court to
pass fresh order, without being uninfluenced by the observations made in its
earlier order. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that when the transfer
request, eventually, reached Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it felt that despite the
safeguards provided by the High Court, the apprehension of the complainant
continued to subsist, particularly when the earlier order passed by the
learned Trial Court was so strongly worded that it could, in all likelihood,
give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant which
could not be lightly brushed aside, and, therefore, permitted transfer. The
situation herein is not comparable with the abovesaid matter.
15. Needless to emphasize, order of transfer of case is bound to have
„depressing, demoralizing and disconsolate impact‟ on the concerned judge
and, therefore, an order of transfer cannot be passed as a matter of routine.
Such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations. The petitioners herein seem hypersensitive, who seem to have
misread the „order and mind of the court‟ and jumped to imaginary and
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 4
unwarranted conclusion.
16. Resultantly, finding no illegality in the impugned order dated
17.03.2026, this Court does not find any reason to transfer the abovesaid
case to another Court.
17. Both the petitions stand dismissed.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 9, 2026/sw/pb
Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 2674/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2694/2026 5
