Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010100782025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(Crl.)/21/2025 RISHABH SARMA S/O SHRI ROHINI KANTA SARMA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.4, RANGAMANCHA PATH,RUKMINIGAON, UNDER DISPUR POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781006. VERSUS THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ARUNACHAL PRADESH 2:SMT. OME MOYONG D/O SHRI OLEN MOYONG R/O ABOTANI COLONY ITANAGAR P.O. AND P.S. ITANAGAR ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K BHATTACHARYYA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, A P, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 16.05.2025 Heard Mr. D. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Adhikari, the learned Additional Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. This is an application filed under Section 447 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Sessions Case No. 22 of 2021 pending at Yupia, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. On 13.06.2020, the petitioner had lodged an FIR before Bihpuria Police Station alleging that during lockdown period his friend, the respondent no. 2, wanted to stay with him. He, accordingly, made the arrangement for her stay. After relaxation of the lockdown period, the petitioner asked the respondent no. 2 to go to her house. The respondent no. 2 refused to return. It is alleged that she started to mentally torture the petitioner. On 12.06.2020, at about 12.30 midnight, the respondent no. 2 allegedly assaulted the petitioner with a broken bottle inside his house. She allegedly attempted to kill him. Police registered a case being Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 232/2020. On conclusion of investigation, Police filed chargesheet against the respondent no. 2 and now, trial is going on. It may be stated that the respondent no. 2 had returned home at Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. On 20.07.2020, she lodged an ejahar before Police stating that since the year 2018, she had friendly relationship with the petitioner. In fact, they had a romantic relationship. It may be stated that during their relationship, they had physical relationship. Slowly, the petitioner started to change in his behavior. Since his transfer to Bihpuria Branch of SBI, the petitioner openly started to tell the respondent no. 2 to break up her relationship with him. Now, the respondent no. 2 has claimed that on a false promise of marriage, the petitioner had sexual relationship with her and thereby committed the criminal offence. This case was also chargesheeted and the trial of the Sessions Case No. 22/2021 is now going on at Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 2 is a violent person and on one occasion, when Page No.# 3/3 he went to Yupia court, he was attacked by the respondent no. 2. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 feels that has threats of his life at Yupia if he goes there for contesting the case. The petitioner prays that the said Sessions Case No. 22/2021 should be transferred to a safe place where he can contest the case effectively. Mr. Adhikari has submitted that if the respondent no. 2 had attempted to cause physical harm to the petitioner, he should have approached the local Police, which he did not. Mr. Adhikari has further submitted that without seeking any Police protection, the petitioner has unnecessary filed this transfer petition just to cause hardship to the respondent no. 2. Mr. Bhattacharjee has submitted that there is every possibility that physical harm may be caused to the petitioner if he goes to Yupia to attend the trial court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. A case is transferred from one place to another only for reaching the ends of justice. A case is transferred for having a fair trial where both sides can contest the case without fear for their life. Yupia is a civilized society. There is a Police force for maintenance of law and order. The petitioner may approach the Police for seeking protection. But, the reason on the basis of which the petitioner has sought for transfer of the case from Yupia to any other place is not found to be satisfactory. For the aforesaid premised reasons, the transfer petitioner is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant