1 2025:CGHC:7308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 36 of 2023 Xyz (Note- Details of prosecutrix is in Close Envelope). ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Newai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Ramesh Shrivastava S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 50 Years R/o Avadhpuri Risali, Near Canal Road Police Station Newai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant No. 01/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Non-applicant No. 02 : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla learned State counsel as well as Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned Counsel, appearing for the non-applicant No. 02. 2. The present transfer petition has been filed by the applicant for transfer of Session Trial No. 118/2023 pending before learned ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.13 10:28:31 +0530 2 Additional Session Judge, (FTC), District Durg to District and Session Judge (FTC), District Bilaspur. 3. According to the prosecution, on 01.03.2023, the victim filed a written report at Nerwai Police Station, alleging that accused/non- applicant No. 02 had emotionally manipulated her, promising to support her during difÏcult times when she was separated from her husband. He allegedly established a physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage for five years, then refused to marry her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused was arrested and later released on regular bail with conditions by the court below, as per the order dated 06.03.2023. After being granted bail, the accused allegedly began threatening the victim to withdraw the case. Even her advocate was threatened, prompting her to file a complaint at Bilaspur's Civil Lines Police Station. However, the police closed the matter under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. He also submits that subsequently, the accused, along with his brother, an advocate at Durg District Court, allegedly continued to threaten the victim and her advocate to withdraw the case. A complaint was filed with the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, but no action has been taken against the accused till date. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim resides in Bilaspur, and due to the lack of a direct bus route between Bilaspur and Durg, she is compelled to use private taxis and buses to attend Court hearings in Durg, which is over 140 km 3 away. This results in significant expenses, approximately Rs. 10,000/- per hearing. He also submits that the applicant faces a serious threat to her life. The accused has intimidated her, warning of dire consequences if she testifies in Court in Durg. Therefore, he prays for transfer the said case from learned Additional Session Judge, (FTC), District Durg to District and Session Judge (FTC), District Bilaspur. 6. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. The learned counsel for non-applicant No. 2 submits that the grounds sought for transferring the case appear vague and are based solely on the instructions of the trial Court's counsel for the applicant. He further submits that charges have already been framed, and the case is scheduled for recording the applicant's evidence. However, despite her presence in Court, her statement is not being recorded due to the pending transfer petition before this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations which have been levelled against the accused which was made by trial Court’s counsel of the applicant though, it is an admitted fact by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 02 that the brother of the non-applicant No. 02 is an Advocate in District Court, Durg, but, considering the fact that the trial is pending 4 and the applicant herself is not appearing before the trial Court for recording her evidence, I do not find any good ground for transfer the present case from Additional Session Judge, (FTC), District Durg to District and Session Judge (FTC), District Bilaspur on the aforesaid ground as it appears to be vague, and further it is made clear that if the applicant apprehends her life, she can approach before the Superintendent of Police concerned for providing security for appearance before the trial Court on the dates fixed, if so required. 10. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the present transfer petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek