Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134454 Court No. - 90 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 676 of 2024 Applicant :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Sawhney,Raju Kumar Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard Shri Hemendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajeev Sawhney, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3. Shri Pushpendra Singh Jadaun, learned AGA is present on behalf of the State. 2. The applicant has filed this transfer application with a prayer to transfer the Sessions Trial No. 1261/2021 (State Vs. Hemendra alias Guddu and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0088/2021, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Nagal, District Bijnor pending before Shri Talewar Singh, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor, to any other court which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. This transfer application has been preferred by the informant of the aforementioned crime number. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Sessions Trial No.1261 of 2021 was initially pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor before whom the charges were framed and testimony of PW-1 Veer Singh was recorded. Testimony of PW-2, Tejpal was partly examined and thereafter the case was transferred to Shri Nijendra Kumar-IVth, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, who, at that time, was holding the charge of court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Bijnor. Evidence of PW-2 Tejpal was completed, testimony of PW-3 Vinit Kumar was partially completed. Apart from it, all the formal witnesses were also examined. Thereafter, the said Sessions Trial was transferred before Shri Khushottar Danish, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, before whom evidence of two constables was recorded. Thereafter, again the case was transferred before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, Shri Ram Lal, before whom the evidence of Investigating Officer and one constable was recorded. Again, the case was transferred and at present the same is pending before Shri Talewar Singh, who is holding the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the said court. Thereafter, a transfer application with the same grounds as raised in this application was moved by the applicant before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor which was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that apart from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, all the Additional Sessions Judge are presently posted at Bijnor and most of the proceedings of trial were completed before them, but only proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were conducted before the present Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Bijnor. Therefore, it is a rule of prudence that court before whom substantial part of trial has taken place is in a better position to decide the case as said court will not only be conversant with the facts of the case but it will also be in a position to read demenour of witnesses. He further contends that in this particular case, it will be expedient in the interest of justice that the present sessions trial should be transferred from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor to any other court mentioned as earlier. Learned counsel has placed his reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in Azeem s/o Mohd. Rashid vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 Criminal L.J. 2956. 5. Learned counsel has also raised another ground for transferring of sessions trial and has submitted that the informant became aware from the villagers that the accused persons were openly making claim that they will be acquitted in the sessions trial by the concerned Presiding Officer. Informant has an apprehension that he will not avail justice from the concerned court. Therefore, his case may be transferred from Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Bijnor to another court of competent jurisdiction, preferably before the courts of Presiding Officers mentioned earlier. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the allegations against the Presiding Officer are vague and the informant is habitual in making false and frivolous complaints against the Presiding Officer before whom his case is transferred for hearing and its disposal. Therefore, this transfer application does not hold any ground and it should be rejected. 7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the details, which have been mentioned in the transfer application pertaining to various courts before which this sessions trial has been transferred in the meantime. 8. It is known fact that nowadays it is near impossible that any sessions trial will come to an end before the same Presiding Officer who has framed charges and has also recorded the testimony of witnesses. Most of the judicial officers are transferred in the mid term. Whenever the Presiding Officer is transferred in mid term, then District Judge has no option but to transfer the cases from his court to another running court. In these circumstances, it is not feasible to expect that a particular case will remain present in a particular court or before a particular Presiding Officer for its disposal. Judgment placed by applicant was perused by me. In Azeem (supra), facts were different as the sessions trial was transferred from the court of Additional Sessions Judge on the ground of huge pendency and accordingly the transfer application was allowed on that sole ground. Hence, this judgment has no relevance in this particular case. Therefore, the ground raised by the applicant that the case shall be heard by those Presiding Officers before whom most of the proceedings were carried out, lacks merit. 9. Now the next ground which pertains to the allegation against the Presiding Officer requires consideration. I have perused the transfer application which was moved by the present applicant/informant before the learned District Judge as well as the present transfer application. In both applications, applicant has merely stated that he heard it from some villagers that accused persons are claiming in the village that they have negotiated with the Presiding Officer and have got assurance of acquittal from him. The said assertion in the application reflects that it has been made upon the hearsay. Applicant has not claimed that any such statement was ever made by the accused before him. It has become a common practice for litigants to make this particular allegation against Presiding Officer in most of the transfer applications. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that a litigant who adopts unfairmeans in any walk of life will make public declaration of his act. In such circumstances, this transfer application lacks merits and it cannot be allowed on mere vague allegations and bald assertion. 10. Accordingly, this transfer application is rejected. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 SK Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad