# Karam Veer Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 488
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-14
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 122 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karam-veer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47907
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 407 - Power of
High Court to transfer cases and appeals -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147,
148, 149 & 302 - apprehension of not
getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial
is required to be reasonable and not
imaginary - Free and fair trial is sine qua
non of Article 21 of the Constitution -
apprehension must appear to the Court to
be a reasonable one.(Para -12)

Transfer application by applicant - from court of
District Judge, Sultanpur - to any other
competent court or any other nearby District
Court - apprehension -- District Judge personally
biased and adamant to convict applicant - trial
would not be conducted impartially and fairly -
adverse and biased remarks made by District
Judge - hence transfer application. (Para -
3,5,6 )

(B) Criminal law - Power of transfer of a
case - must be exercised meticulously
and with precision under compelling
circumstances - where on the basis of
material on record it appears to the
court that there is strong reason for
doing so and by not transferring the
case there would be miscarriage of
justice - No universal or hard and fast
rules - Merely making vague allegation
that there is an apprehension in the
mind of applicant that justice will not be
done in a given case alone would not
suffice.(Para - 15)

HELD:-Allegations levelled by applicant wholly
vague and general in nature. Not supported by
any reliable material on record. Applicant's
apprehension of not getting justice quite
imaginary. (Para -16 )

Transfer application dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is lastly
contended that applicant is a man of clean
antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal
history to his credit except present one.
Applicant is in jail since 15.09.2022. In case
the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate
with
trial.
Charge-sheet
having
been
submitted against applicant, therefore, the
evidence sought to be relied upon by the
prosecution
against
applicant,
stands
crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of
applicant is not absolutely necessary during
course of trial. On the cumulative strength of
above, he submits that applicant is liable to be
enlarged on bail

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party has vehemently opposed the
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts
on record.

11. The ingredients of offence under
Section 363 IPC are not made out against the
applicant as per the judgement of Apex Court in
the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of
Madras, 1965 AIR (SC) 942, since the victim
herself left her house and went to the applicant.
She was not enticed away by him.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for
applicant, learned counsel for the opposite
party, upon consideration of evidence on record,
considering the aforesaid case-law, accusations
made as well as complicity of applicant coupled
with the fact that there is no medical evidence to
support
the
prosecution
of
applicant,
prosecutrix in her statements recorded under
Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. having not
supported the prosecution case, prosecutrix and
applicant having solemnized marriage and are
living together as husband & wife and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, present bail application
for bail is allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Ramvilash @
Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori involved in
aforesaid case crime number be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned with the following conditions
which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-

(i) Applicant will not tamper with
prosecution evidence.

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of
court, will attend the court on every date and
will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner
whatsoever.

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any
unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the
liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

The identity, status and residential proof of
sureties will be verified by court concerned and
in case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, court concerned will be at
liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send
him to prison.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 488
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 122 of 2022

Karam Veer Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
12 All. Karam Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
489
Paritosh Shukla, Anamika Singh, Sukh Deo
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 407 - Power of
High Court to transfer cases and appeals -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147,
148, 149 & 302 - apprehension of not
getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial
is required to be reasonable and not
imaginary - Free and fair trial is sine qua
non of Article 21 of the Constitution -
apprehension must appear to the Court to
be a reasonable one.(Para -12)

Transfer application by applicant - from court of
District Judge, Sultanpur - to any other
competent court or any other nearby District
Court - apprehension -- District Judge personally
biased and adamant to convict applicant - trial
would not be conducted impartially and fairly -
adverse and biased remarks made by District
Judge - hence transfer application. (Para -
3,5,6 )

(B) Criminal law - Power of transfer of a
case - must be exercised meticulously
and with precision under compelling
circumstances - where on the basis of
material on record it appears to the
court that there is strong reason for
doing so and by not transferring the
case there would be miscarriage of
justice - No universal or hard and fast
rules - Merely making vague allegation
that there is an apprehension in the
mind of applicant that justice will not be
done in a given case alone would not
suffice.(Para - 15)

HELD:-Allegations levelled by applicant wholly
vague and general in nature. Not supported by
any reliable material on record. Applicant's
apprehension of not getting justice quite
imaginary. (Para -16 )

Transfer application dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs St. of Raj. , AIR
1966 SC 1418

2. K.P. Tiwari Vs St. of M.P., 1994 SCC (Cri) 712

3. Captain Amarinder Singh Vs Parkash Singh
Badal & ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260

4. Usmangani Adambhai Vahora Vs St. of Guj.
& anr., (2016) 3 SCC 370

5. Amit Agarwal Vs Atul Gupta, 2014 (11) ADJ
414 (All.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard Shri Paritosh Shukla learned
counsel for the applicant, Shri Rejesh
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate-1st assisted by Shri
Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned counsel for
the state of U.P./opposite party no.1 and
perused the record.

2. In view of the order proposed to be
passed, notice to opposite party no.2 is
dispensed with.

3. This transfer application u/s 407
Cr.P.C. has been moved by applicant with
the prayer to transfer the Sessions Trial
No.121/2016, arising out of Case Crime
No.0321/2015, State vs. Anurag Singh &
Ors., under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
I.P.C., Police Station Dhammour, District
Sultanpur from the court of District Judge,
Sultanpur to any other competent court or
any other nearby District Court.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the
present transfer application are that the
Sessions Trial No.121/2016, State vs. Anurag
Singh & Ors., is pending in the Court of
District Judge, Sultanpur. The present
applicant is one of the accused, who is facing
the aforesaid trial. On 05.12.2022, arguments
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were heard by the Court below and
15.12.2022 was fixed for delivery of
judgment. In the evening of 10.12.2022, the
applicant, while he was going for some
personal work, saw the vehicle of informant
of the aforesaid criminal case/opposite party
no.2, herein, parked outside the bungalow of
learned District Judge, Sultanpur, in which
the informant/opposite party no.2 was sitting.
The applicant stopped there and waited for a
while. He noticed that one Tarkeshwar Singh,
Advocate, Ex-DGC (Criminal) came out
from the house of District Judge, Sultanpur
and he then drove the vehicle away, in which
the first informant/opposite party no.2 was
sitting.
According
to
the
applicant,
Tarekeshwar Singh, Advocate had worked as
DGC
(Criminal),
who
has
conducted
substantial part of trial of the aforesaid
sessions trial on behalf of the prosecution
until his retirement. Immediately after his
retirement, he has filed vakalatnama on
behalf of the first informant/opposite party
no.2, herein. The applicant alleges that
Tarekeshwar Singh is personally interested in
the outcome of present trial as he is the
distant relative/well wisher of the first
informant/opposite
party
no.2.
On
12.12.2022, the applicant also came to know
in his village that the first informant/opposite
party no.2 has managed to have a favourable
judgment in his favour. Therefore, the
applicant
immediately
approached
the
Administrative Judge, Sultanpur and Hon'ble
The Chief Justice through e-mail. It is also
stated that the co-accused has also filed an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing
No.2278 of 2022 before this Court, which is
still pending and this fact was also brought to
the notice of learned District Judge,
Sultanpur.

5. In view of the aforesaid overall
facts and circumstances of this case, the
applicant has apprehension that learned
District Judge, Sultanpur is personally
biased and adamant to convict the applicant
in the aforesaid session trial. There is every
possibility that in the aforesaid situation,
the trial of Session Trial No.121/2016,
State vs. Anurag Singh & Ors., would not
be
conducted
impartially
and
fairly,
particularly keeping in view the adverse
and biased remarks made by the learned
District Judge, Sultanpur in the open Court.

6. In the aforesaid background, the
present transfer application has been filed
by the present applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
reiterated the aforesaid allegations and
apprehensions and submitted that in the
peculiar facts of this Case, the applicant
apprehends that he would not get justice
from the Court where Sessions Trial
No.121/2016, arising out of Case Crime
No.0321/2015, State vs. Anurag Singh &
Ors. is pending. His further submission is
that the right of fair trial implies trial,
which is conducted impartially. Therefore,
he submits that the instant transfer
application deserves to be allowed.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the aforesaid submission and
prayer made by learned counsel for the
applicant by submitting that except oral
allegation levelled by the applicant against
the learned District Judge, Sultanpur and
one Tarekeshwar Singh, who has not been
made a party in this application, there is no
material on record to support such
allegations levelled by him. It is also
submitted that no details have been given
by the applicant to demonstrate as to how
and in what manner the District Judge,
Sultanpur made biased and adverse remarks
against the applicant. He, thus, submits that
the present application has been moved by
12 All. Karam Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
491
the applicant for ulterior motive and on
flimsy grounds just to cause delay and to
exert undue pressure upon the concerned
Presiding Officer. Therefore, the same is
liable to be dismissed.

9. It is trite that in view of sub-section
(1) of Section 407 Cr.P.C. a case can be
transferred, whenever it is made to appear
to High Court-

(a) that a fair and impartial
inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
criminal court subordinate thereto,or

(b) that some question of law of
unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or

(c) that an order under this
section is required by any provision of the
code of criminal procedure,or will tend to
the general convenience of the parties or
witness,or is expedient for the ends of
justice.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on
several occasions has considered the issue
of
transfer
of
cases
in
different
circumstances.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418, in para
no.13 has held as under:-

"13. .....A case is transferred if
there is a reasonable apprehension on the
part of a party to a case that justice will
not be done. A petitioner is not required to
demonstrate that justice will inevitably
fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows
circumstances from which it can be
inferred
that
he
entertains
an
apprehension and that it is reasonable in
the circumstances alleged. It is one of the
principles of the administration of justice
that justice should not only be done but it
should be seen to be done. However, a
mere allegation that there is apprehension
that justice will not be done in a given
case does not office. The Court has
further to see whether the apprehension is
reasonable
or
not.
To
judge
the
reasonableness of the apprehension the
State of the mind of the person who
entertains the apprehension is no doubt
relevant
but
that
is
not
all.
The
apprehension must not only be entertained
but must appear to the Court to be a
reasonable apprehension."

 (emphasis supplied)

12. In K.P. Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
1994 SCC (Cri) 712 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para no.4 has held as under:-

"4....It has also to be remembered
that the lower judicial officers mostly work
under a charged atmosphere and are
constantly under a psychological pressure
with all the contestants and their lawyers
almost breathing down their necks - more
correctly up to their nostrils. They do not
have the benefit of a detached atmosphere
of the higher courts to think coolly and
decide patiently. Every error, however
gross it may look, should not, therefore, be
attributed to improper motive."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Captain Amarinder Singh Vs.
Parkash Singh Badal and others (2009) 6
SCC 260, has held in para nos.18, 19 and
20 as under:-

"18. For a transfer of a criminal
case,
there
must
be
a
reasonable
apprehension on the part of the party to a
case that justice will not be done. It is one
of the principles of administration of justice
that justice should not only be done but it
should be seen to be done. On the other
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hand, mere allegations that there is
apprehension that justice will not be done
in a given case does not suffice. In other
words, the court has further to see whether
apprehension alleged is a reasonable or
not. The apprehension must not only be
entertained but must appear to the court to
be a reasonable apprehension.

19. Assurance of a fair trial is the
first imperative of the dispensation of
justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is
to dispense fair and impartial justice
uninfluenced by extraneous considerations.
When it is shown that the public confidence
in the fairness of a trial would be seriously
undermined, the aggrieved party can seek
the transfer of a case within the State under
Section 407 and anywhere in the country
under Section 406 Cr.P.C.

20. However, the apprehension
of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry
or trial is required to be reasonable and
not imaginary. Free and fair trial is sine
qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.
If the criminal trial is not free and fair
and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the
criminal justice system would be at stake,
shaking the confidence of the public in the
system. The apprehension must appear to
the Court to be a reasonable one."

 (emphasis supplied)

13. The Apex Court in case of
Usmangani Adambhai Vahora Vs. State
of Gujarat and another (2016) 3 SCC
370 considering the previous judgments of
the Supreme Court has held:-

"Seeking transfer at the drop of a
hat is inconceivable. An order of transfer is
not to be passed as a matter of routine or
merely because an interested party has
expressed some apprehension about proper
conduct of the trial. The power has to be
exercised cautiously and in exceptional
situations, where it becomes necessary to
do so to provide credibility to the trial.
There has to be a real apprehension that
there would be miscarriage of justice."

14. This Court in case of Amit
Agarwal Vs. Atul Gupta 2014 (11) ADJ
414 (All.) considering the scope of transfer
in such a matter has held that:-

"24. Mere suspicion by the party
that he will not get justice would not justify
transfer. There must be a reasonable
apprehension to that effect. A judicial order
made by a Judge legitimately cannot be
made foundation for a transfer of case.
Mere presumption of possible apprehension
should not and ought not be the basis of
transfer of any case from one case to
another. It is only in very special
circumstances, when such grounds are
taken, the Court must find reasons exist to
transfer a case, not otherwise. (Rajkot
Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation,
Rajkot, AIR 1988 Gujarat 63; Pasupala
Fakruddin and Anr. vs. Jamia Masque and
Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and, Nandini
Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR
2001 Culcutta 26)

25. Where a transfer is sought
making allegations regarding integrity or
influence etc. in respect of the Presiding
Officer of the Court, this Court has to be
very careful before passing any order of
transfer.

26. In the matters where reckless
false allegations are attempted to be made
to seek some favourable order, either in a
transfer application, or otherwise, the
approach of Court must be strict and
cautious
to
find
out
whether
the
allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to
be true on their face, in the entirety of
circumstances, can be believed to be
correct, by any person of ordinary
12 All. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
493
prudence in those circumstances. If the
allegations are apparently false, strict
approach is the call of the day so as to
maintain not only discipline in the courts
of law but also to protect judicial officers
and maintain their self esteem, confidence
and above all the majesty of institution of
justice."

(emphasis supplied)

15. Thus, after having carefully
examined entire material available before
this Court on the touch stone of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gurcharan Dass Chadha (supra), K.P.
Tiwari
(supra),
Captain Amarinder
Singh (supra), Amit Agarwal (supra) and
Usmangani Adambhai Vahora (supra),
this Court is of the view that that the power
of transfer of a case must be exercised
meticulously and with precision under
compelling circumstances, where on the
basis of material on record it appears to the
court that there is strong reason for doing
so and by not transferring the case there
would be miscarriage of justice. No
universal or hard and fast rules can be
applied for deciding a transfer application
which has always to be decided on the
basis of facts of each case. It is also well
settled that the alleged apprehension has to
be well founded. The apprehension of not
getting a fair and impartial justice is
required to be reasonable based on strong
material and not hypothetical. Merely
making vague allegation that there is an
apprehension in the mind of applicant that
justice will not be done in a given case
alone would not suffice.

16. Adverting to the facts of the case
in hand, this Court finds that the allegations
levelled by the applicant as mentioned
above are wholly vague and general in
nature, which are not supported by any
reliable material on record. The applicant's
apprehension that he would not get justice
is quite imaginary. The grounds set out by
the applicant do not justify the transfer of
case as prayed by the applicant. Therefore,
this Court does not find any good ground to
interfere in this matter.

17. Accordingly, the instant transfer
application lacks merit, which deserves to
be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed.

18. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Court concerned,
forthwith, through email/fax for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 493
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1000602 of 1999

Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das
 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Pathak, Gyanendra Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Chief Standing Counsel, Prasiddha Narayan
Singh, Vijai Kumar Shukla, Yogesh Singh

A. Civil Law -U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901Section 219-Petitioner could not indicate
why
the
facts regarding the
earlier
mutation proceedings were not brought
on record and that once the private
respondent no. 4 disclosed about the