SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010164412025 C447/39/2025 Ram Prakash Gautam --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned AGA with Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. By means of the present transfer application under Section 447 of the B.N.S.S., the applicant has sought transfer of Sessions Trial No.11 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ‘State Vs. Sachin Gautam’, pending in the court of Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rishikesh to any other court of Sessions Judge except District Rishikesh and Dehradun. 3. The two main grounds on which the transfer of the said Sessions Trial are as under:- (i) that the respondent no.2, Jitendra Gautam and Ashok Gautam, who is posted at Police Station Tundla and other unknown persons tried to pressurize the applicant for withdrawal of the complaint and came to applicant's house at 9:00 p.m. on 26.08.2025 and extended him grave threats. The applicant has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun for the said incident through registered post. (ii) Also it is stated by the applicant that the respondent no.2 is on bail and is continuously trying to pressurize the applicant for withdrawal of the case and it is possible that the respondent no.2 could manage and pressurize the other witnesses to declare them hostile. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State would submit that the allegations of threat are in the State of U.P. and they have nothing to do with the trial’s proceedings in Rishikesh. 5. It is also apt to mention that if there is any threat perception to any of the witnesses, the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020 provides for granting adequate protection, once the same is brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. Since the threat perception has been alleged to be within Tundla, District Firozabad, which is situated in State of U.P., hence, this is not a ground on which the case can be transferred from the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is open for the applicant to move appropriate application before the concerned authority under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020. 6. The learned AGA for the State very fairly submits that if such an application is preferred by the applicant, the due protection shall be granted to the witnesses in accordance with law. Thus the said grievance as has been raised so far as the witnesses are concerned is redressed. Therefore, nothing survives in the present transfer application and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Hence, the present Criminal Transfer Application No.39 of 2025 is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) 17.07.2026 JKJ/