Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chhattisgarh High Court
Justice Delivery System Knows No Caste, Religion; Allegation Of Bias By Mere Fact Of Adverse Order Not Sufficient To Justify Transfer: Chhattisgarh High Court
|The Petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court was filed under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner for transfer of a Criminal Trial.
While dismissing a petition seeking transfer of a criminal trial on the ground of Judge’s bias, the Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that the allegation of bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer unless it is also substantiated by relevant material. The Bench also observed that the justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed and color.
The Petition before the High Court was filed under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner for transfer of a Criminal Trial pending before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to any other competent court within the District of Raipur or State of Chhattisgarh. It was alleged that the Special Judge had personal bias against the petitioner and, upon his instruction, the petitioner had been falsely implicated.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha said, “The allegation of bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer unless it is also substantiated by relevant material, which is not the case in hand. Moreover, the accused and complainant both are the Advocates. As such, I do not find any good ground interference in the present matter.”
“The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice”, it added
Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Jitendra Shrivastava represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The victim/respondent had lodged a written complaint stating that she got acquainted with the accused, Parmeshwar Sahu, 5 years back while studying LL.B. Course at Raipur. Thereafter, they started practicing in Raipur District Court. Though the accused Parmeshwar Sahu refused to marry her, but continued physical intercourse without her consent. She became 9 months pregnant. It was alleged that the prime accused along with others tried to administer some poisonous substance in order to kill her. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 511, 34 of IPC and Section 294, 323, 506-B, 313, 342, 417 of IPC.
It was brought to the Court’s notice that the investigation is pending regarding the role of the suspected accused Chandrashekhar Agarwal (present petitioner) in the case. Meanwhile, the other 3 accused persons, Parmeshwar Sahu, Ramnath Sahu and Neha Sahu alongwith the accused Dileshwar Sahu had been granted regular bail. The petitioner was in jail for a considerable period until his bail application in the form of Criminal Appeal was decided by the Court. Thereafter, the present petition was filed by the petitioner for transfer of Criminal Special Atrocities Case.
Reasoning
The Bench explained, “Transfer of cases from one Court to another is a serious matter particularly when transfer is sought by making allegations against Presiding Officer. It sometimes indirectly causes doubt on the integrity and competence of Presiding Officer of the Court from whom the matter is transferred. In cases where ground for transfer is likelihood of bias of Presiding Officer, it is onerous duty of Court to see, whether such ground has been substantiated with reasonable certainty or not. It should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause.”
The Bench observed that the allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 447 of BNSS, the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension must be proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer.
“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 Court 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”, it said.
The Bench also asserted, “Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one Court 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.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that during the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer found prima facie case against the petitioner, arrested him and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused. Thus,finding the allegation to be unsubstantiated, the Bench dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Chandrashekhar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:32743)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate Kishore Narayan
Respondent: Government Advocate Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocates Goutam Khetrapal, Arvind Prasad, Pragalbh Sharma