$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(CRL.) 91/2025 & CRL.M.As. 33223/2025, 33224/2025, 33225/2025 ARUN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram and Mr. Tushar, Advocates with Petitioner (in- Person). versus THE STATE OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State. SI Ved Prakash, P.S. Jaitpur. Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Advocate for R-2 to R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 11.11.2025 1. This petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seeks transfer of Sessions Case No. 11511/2023, titled State v. Pramod & Others, arising from FIR No. 202/2023, P.S. Jaitpur, registered under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act from the Court of ASJ-07, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, to any other Court within the same Sessions Division. 2. The Petitioner is the complainant, an injured eyewitness, and the son of the deceased. His request for transfer of the case before the Principal District & Sessions Judge has declined by order dated 11th November, 2024. 3. The Court has heard counsel for the Petitioner as well as the 1 “BNSS” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 12:14:20 Petitioner, who appears along with him. The principal grievance pertains to the manner in which his testimony is being recorded by the Trial Court. The Petitioner contends that his responses are not being recorded properly and that the conduct of the Presiding Officer has instilled in him a sense of intimidation, eroding his confidence in receiving a fair hearing. It is further submitted that during cross-examination, his voluntary explanations are often omitted from the record. On one occasion, when the Petitioner appeared through video conferencing and merely sought a short adjournment, the Presiding Officer directed issuance of non-bailable warrants against him. This has further deepened his apprehension his apprehension that, though he is the complainant and injured witness, he is being treated as if he were an accused. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Mohan, counsel appearing for the accused before the Trial Court, submits that the Trial is being conducted in accordance with law. He explains that the Petitioner often volunteers long explanations beyond the question put, and that the Presiding Judge, in such circumstances, only directs him to answer precisely, before adding any voluntary remarks. No bias or prejudice can be inferred from the conduct of the Presiding Officer, and that the grounds urged for transfer are devoid of substance. 5. It is noted that the power of transfer under Section 447 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 407 of Cr.P.C.) must be exercised with great caution and only where there exists a real and reasonable apprehension of bias or miscarriage of justice. Vague allegations or subjective impressions are insufficient. The Supreme Court, in Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 12:14:20 UOI2, observed to this effect as follows: “It needs little emphasis that a prayer for transfer should be allowed only when there is a well-substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively and without any bias. In the absence of any material demonstrating such apprehension, this Court will not entertain application for transfer of a trial, as any transfer of trial from one State to another implicitly reflects upon the credibility of not only the entire State judiciary but also the prosecuting agency, which would include the Public Prosecutors as well.” 6. As to the alleged irregularities in the recording of evidence, this Court refrains from making any determination, in view of the divergent accounts placed before it. Nevertheless, the Court is confident that the Presiding Judge will conduct the proceedings with due sensitivity, bearing in mind that the Petitioner, as per the prosecution case, is a victim who lost his father in the incident under trial. This human aspect should guide the tone of the proceedings. It is expected that the testimony of witnesses shall be accurately recorded, ensuring that their responses are captured in full and without omission. 7. At this stage, Mr. Rajiv Mohan has fairly suggested that the recording of the testimony in a question-and-answer format to avoid ambiguity; counsel for the Petitioner concurs. The Presiding Judge shall take note of this consensus and proceed accordingly. 8. Counsel for the Petitioner has assured that there has never been any intent on the part of the Petitioner to evade the process of law and that he shall remain present before the Trial Court on the next date fixed. For cancellation of the NBWs, the appropriate course would be for the Petitioner to first move an application before the Trial Court, which shall be 2 (2011) 1 SCC 307. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 12:14:20 considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations and directions, the present petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 11, 2025/as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 12:14:20