1 2026:CGHC:7889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 3 of 2026 Manish Singh S/o Vijay Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Near Taru Bahi Chowk, P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sisodia, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2 2. The present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District–Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Case No.103/2025, whereby the application under Section 448 BNSS seeking transfer of Special NDPS Case No.121/2021 (State vs. Manish Singh & Others) pending before the Court of Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for transfer of the aforesaid NDPS case to some other competent Court. 3. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the present matter arises out of Special NDPS Case No. 121/2021 (State vs. Manish Singh & Others) pending before the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, presided over by Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha. During the course of trial, the accused persons moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate relief for just decision of the case, however, the said application was decided and dismissed on the very same day without calling for any reply and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the accused. Being aggrieved by such summary rejection, the accused preferred a revision before this Court. Thereafter, the accused filed another application before the trial Court under Section 233 Cr.P.C. (for summoning defence witnesses), praying that defence witnesses be called for examination. The trial Court, however, while entertaining the said 3 application, directed the accused to deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards advance expenses for meals and related arrangements of the witnesses. It is the case of the accused that such direction was passed without proper consideration of their financial condition and with malafide intention. The accused submitted that one of the co-accused is already in judicial custody in another case and the other accused is a very poor person and not in a position to afford the said amount, thereby seriously prejudicing their right to fair defence. 4. It is further the case of the accused that they moved a transfer application before the learned Sessions Court, Raipur, seeking transfer of Special NDPS Case No. 121/2021 from the Court of Special Judge, Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha to some other competent Court. The ground taken was that certain persons had allegedly demanded money for securing acquittal, and since the accused were unable to fulfill such demand, they apprehended bias and unfair trial. It is also the case of the petitioner that the transfer petition was duly filed and the though the Sessions Judge was informed about aforesaid alleged demand of money and biasness, however, the said transfer was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 06.12.2025 and during pendency of the transfer application, as the proceedings of NDPS case has not been stayed by the Sessions Judge, the learned trial Court continued with the trial and passed orders dated 03.11.2025, 15.11.2025 and 22.11.2025. In these 4 circumstances, alleging denial of fair opportunity, financial hardship, and apprehension of bias in the conduct of proceedings, the accused have preferred the present transfer petition challenging the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District–Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Case No.103/2025, whereby the application under Section 448 BNSS seeking transfer of Special NDPS Case No.121/2021 (State vs. Manish Singh & Others) pending before the Court of Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, has been rejected and to transfer the aforesaid NDPS case to some other competent Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application under Section 448 of the BNSS is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing transfer of criminal cases. It is contended that during the course of trial, the learned Special Judge (NDPS) dismissed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the very same day without calling for any reply from the prosecution and without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the accused, thereby causing serious prejudice to their right to fair trial. It is further submitted that while considering the application under Section 233 Cr.P.C. for summoning defence witnesses, the trial Court directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards advance expenses for meals and other arrangements of the witnesses, 5 without properly appreciating the financial condition of the accused persons. According to the petitioner, one of the co- accused is already in judicial custody in another matter and the other accused is a person of limited means, and such direction has virtually curtailed their right to lead defence evidence. Learned counsel further submits that there exists a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that they may not receive a fair and impartial trial before the present Presiding Officer. It is alleged that certain persons had demanded money for securing acquittal and, upon failure of the accused to meet such unlawful demand, there has been a continuous adverse approach in the conduct of proceedings. Though the said allegations were specifically brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge in the transfer application, the same have not been properly considered. It is also submitted that despite pendency of the transfer application before the Sessions Court, the trial Court proceeded with the matter and passed orders dated 03.11.2025, 15.11.2025 and 22.11.2025, thereby further strengthening the apprehension of bias and denial of fair opportunity. Hence, in order to instill confidence in the administration of justice and to ensure a fair and impartial trial, Special NDPS Case No.121/2021 be transferred from the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur to any other competent Court. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supports the impugned order and submits that no ground as 6 contemplated under Section 448 BNSS is made out. It is contended that the trial Court has afforded adequate opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence and that mere imposition of reasonable expenses for securing presence of defence witnesses cannot be a ground for transfer. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record, including the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the relevant order sheets of the trial Court. 8. The law with regard to transfer of criminal cases is well settled. Power of transfer is to be exercised sparingly and only when there exists a real and reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that justice will not be done. Such apprehension must be based on cogent material and not on conjectures, surmises or unfounded allegations. Mere dissatisfaction with interlocutory orders passed during the course of trial cannot be a ground for transfer. 9. In the present case, the principal grievance of the petitioner is twofold: (i) imposition of Rs.3,000/- per defence witness towards expenses, and (ii) alleged apprehension of bias on the basis of certain assertions made in the transfer application. 10. So far as the imposition of expenses is concerned, the record reveals that the trial Court had fixed the case for defence evidence on several dates, namely 17.10.2025, 31.10.2025, 7 03.11.2025, 15.11.2025 and 22.11.2025. It further appears that defence witnesses were not present on earlier dates and ultimately one defence witness was examined on 02.12.2025. The direction to deposit expenses for securing presence of defence witnesses cannot, by itself, be termed illegal or indicative of bias. The trial Court is vested with discretion to regulate proceedings and ensure attendance of witnesses in accordance with law. If the accused were genuinely unable to deposit the amount on account of financial hardship, it was open to them to seek appropriate modification or relaxation before the trial Court. Such grievance, even if assumed to be valid, would not ipso facto constitute a ground for transfer of the entire trial. 11. With regard to the allegation of demand of money and apprehension of bias, the learned Sessions Judge, upon perusal of the original record, has recorded a categorical finding that no illegality or irregularity in the conduct of trial Court is reflected from the order sheets. The record further indicates that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was considered and decided, statement of the accused was recorded, and opportunity for defence evidence was granted on multiple dates. Certified copies were also directed to be supplied as per rules. There is no material on record to substantiate the bald allegation that the Presiding Officer acted with prejudice or with a predetermined mind. 8 12. It is trite law that allegations against a Presiding Officer must be supported by strong and convincing material. Transfer of a criminal case on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations would not only undermine the independence of the judiciary but also set an unhealthy precedent. The apprehension must be reasonable and not a mere subjective perception of the accused. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the grounds urged by the petitioner, imposition of expenses for defence witnesses and alleged apprehension of bias without cogent material do not satisfy the parameters laid down for exercise of power under Sections 447 and 448 of BNSS. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the transfer application by a reasoned order after examining the original record. 14. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil