APHC010411582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 79/2025 Between: Md Zulfikar Ahmed Sheriff ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking to transfer C.C.No.06 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool to the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is working as a Divisional Engineer, (Bridges), South Central Railways, Guntakal, during the year 2015 and was implicated in a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide R.C.No.4(A)/2015, on the file of the CBI, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the petitioner got arrested by the CBI, Hyderabad and was sent to judicial custody. Later, the petitioner was released on bail and a charge sheet was also filed before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and thereafter, due to jurisdictional issues, the aforesaid case was transferred to Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam and subsequently, the same was transferred to Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool and numbered as C.C.No.06 of 2022, wherein after vacating the stay, the trail has been commenced from 22.07.2025. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is apprehending that the learned Judge is showing bias and supporting the prosecution for conducting trial. He would further contend that if the trial is not conducted impartially and if the deposition of the witness is not recorded verbatim, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to transfer C.C.No.06 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool to the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada. 3. The respondent (CBI) had filed a counter affidavit by contending that at present, more than 30 cases are pending for trial before the learned Special Judge for CBI cases, Kurnool, but, in none of the said cases, the respondent/CBI has received any such information or complaint against the learned Presiding Officer showing prejudice or any bias attitude against any accused including the petitioner herein. It was further contend that the allegations that are leveled against the learned Presiding Officer, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool are vague and baseless and are with the intention to delay the trial proceedings and as such there are no merits in the present transfer criminal petition and requested to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. When the matter came up for admission on 11.08.2025, this Court has directed the Registrar Judicial of this Court to forward the copy of the affidavit of the petitioner to the concerned Judicial Officer and to obtain remarks, if any, regarding the allegations leveled against the said Judicial Officer. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2025, the learned Presiding Officer of the CBI Court, Kurnool had addressed the remarks to the Registry, wherein it is submitted that all the allegations that are leveled against the Presiding Officer are false and incorrect and she had never made any comments either on the accused or on the learned counsel appearing for the accused in the open Court. 6. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors1 held as follows: “24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are: (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice.” 7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that while transferring a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. Further, as seen from the material available on record, no prima facie material has been placed by the petitioner stating that the learned Presiding Officer of the CBI Court, Kurnool is acting unfair and was influenced by the extortions. Further, “mere apprehension would not be a valid ground for seeking transfer of a criminal case from one jurisdictional Court to another jurisdictional Court” and that too in the case on hand; the trial in C.C.No.06 of 2022 has already been commenced by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. Therefore, In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 29.08.2025 SRT