1 2025:CGHC:37732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 19 of 2025 Sunil Namdeo S/o Late Narmada Prasad Namdeo, Aged About 45 Years R/o Anand Vatika, VIP Road, Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) … Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Durgesh Rawate S/o Shri P.K. Rawate, Aged About 40 Years R/o Police Station Raipur, Mana Camp Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate and Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate and Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent /State. 2. The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:17:49 +0530 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and direct the learned Special Session Judge, (Atrocities) Raipur to decide the application (Annexure P/1) preferred by the petitioner within stipulated time, and the case may be transferred till that the Special Criminal Case No. 19/2021 before the learned Special Session Judge (Atrocities) Raipur be stayed till the application preferred by the petitioner does not get decided, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner is a journalist who, during the course of reporting, published articles highlighting certain irregularities by the Congress party during its tenure in government. Based on these reports, investigating agencies, including the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) and other central agencies, took cognizance and initiated inquiries against several politicians and individuals. Aggrieved by these articles, a false FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 186, 189, 353, 294, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Mana, District Raipur, bearing Crime No. 19/2021. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. The learned Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Raipur took cognizance, and trial proceedings commenced. Some prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner submitted an application before the Special Court seeking permission to play CCTV footage from his residence. The application was rejected, prompting the petitioner to file Cr.M.P. No. 3086/2024. The Hon’ble Court, by order dated 19.11.2024, granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for displaying the video footage as part of his defence. The Trial Court was directed to consider it in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 4. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner filed a fresh application dated 29.11.2024, supported by an affidavit and a certificate under Section 65B of the 3 Evidence Act. However, the Trial Court rejected the application without properly complying with the directions of the Hon’ble Court. The petitioner had earlier filed T.P. (Cr.) No. 44/2024 for transfer of the case, in which liberty was granted to file a fresh petition with appropriate prayer. The petitioner also filed an application dated 15.07.2025, referring to his earlier application dated 02.12.2024, which remains pending before the Trial Court and has not yet been considered. The petitioner has also challenged the said rejection order before the Hon’ble Court, and the matter is currently pending consideration. 5. Meanwhile, the Trial Court is proceeding with final arguments. Despite the petitioner’s request for adjournment in view of the pending petition before the Hon’ble Court, no positive response was received from the Trial Court. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has filed the present Transfer Petition seeking transfer of Criminal Case No. 19/2021 pending before the learned Special Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a news reporter, has filed the present transfer application seeking transfer of the case from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, to another equivalent Special Court. The ground for this request is that the inaction of the learned Special Court is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, as it has failed to provide a fair and adequate opportunity to present his defence, despite the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner had submitted an application seeking permission to present CCTV footage crucial to his defence; however, the learned Special Court has failed to act on the same and has allowed the application to remain pending without justification. As per Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), where a transfer application is pending, the High Court may stay proceedings in the subordinate Court in the interest of justice. However, contrary to the intent of this provision, the learned Special Court continues to proceed with the trial, ignoring the pendency of the petitioner’s application and thereby 4 causing prejudice to the defence. The manner in which the trial is being conducted reflects a clear imbalance in the scales of justice and raises serious concerns of bias. The refusal to allow the petitioner to present crucial video evidence, despite compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, amounts to a denial of the right to a fair trial as recognized by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In these circumstances, it is just and proper that this Hon’ble Court either directs the learned Trial Court to consider and decide the petitioner’s application on merits or, in the interest of justice, transfers the present Special Criminal Case to another competent Court having jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and prayers made in the transfer petition. 9. At the outset, it may be noted that the power of transfer under Section 407 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is to be exercised sparingly and in rare and compelling circumstances where it shown that there exists a reasonable instances showing real likelihood of prejudice cannot be made the basis for such transfer. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claims by placing on record any cogent material or evidence that may establish that the learned Presiding Officer is in any manner biased or that justice is likely to be denied. The allegations are vague and speculative in nature. No instance has been cited to demonstrate that the learned Judge has acted with prejudice or that the petitioner’s right to a fair trial is under treat. 11. The petitioner’s professional back ground and his journalistic activities may form a part of his larger narrative, however, he do not, in himself, provide valid grounds to cast aspersions on the independence or impartiality of a Judicial 5 Officer. The judicial process cannot be stalled or shifted merely on the basis of unfounded apprehensions or extraneous considerations. 12. Furthermore, the application (Annexure P-1) filed before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur is stated to be pending. It is open for the petitioner to urge all permissible legal grounds in that application and for the learned trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law and its own calendar of proceedings. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition so as to warrant exercise of the transfer jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 14. Needless to observe that the learned trial Court shall proceed with the pending application (Annexure P-1) and the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti