1 CGHC010315282026 2026:CGHC:38179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 21 of 2026 Ashish Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 35 Years R/o Quarter No. 15/a, Street 24, Sector 7, Bhilai, Civil, Tehsil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Mahila Thana, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Ankita Pandey W/o Ashish Kumar Pandey Aged About 28 Years R/o Type-3, D S 203, Kirandul, Police Station - Kirandul, Tehsil Bade Bacheli, Dist South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.1/State. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The present Transfer Petition is being preferred under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 204/2025 from the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dantewada to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Durg, in view of the subsequent and material change in circumstances arising after the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Court in TPCR No. 27 of 2025, whereby the said Sessions Trial was transferred from the Court of the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg to the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dantewada. 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the applicant is the sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 204/2025 arising out of Crime No. 81/2022 registered at Mahila Police Station, Durg, for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, the trial was pending before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, however, by order dated 03.12.2025 passed in TPCR No. 27/2025, this Court transferred the trial to Dantewada on the grounds of the complainant’s apprehension of threat, the serious medical condition of her mother, who was a material witness, and the pendency of matrimonial proceedings at Dantewada. Thereafter, the complainant and other material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, while the complainant’s mother is no longer required to be examined as a witness. Further, the matrimonial proceedings at Dantewada have also been finally decided in favour of the applicant. The 3 prosecution evidence is now at its concluding stage, with only the medical expert and investigating officer remaining to be examined. In view of these subsequent and material changes in circumstances, the applicant seeks transfer of the trial back to Durg, where the applicant, his defence witnesses and counsel are situated, so as to avoid further hardship and facilitate expeditious conclusion of the trial. Hence, the present transfer petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circumstances which formed the basis of the earlier transfer order dated 03.12.2025 passed in TPCR No. 27/2025 have undergone substantial and material change. The complainant’s mother, whose serious medical condition and proposed evidence constituted one of the principal grounds for transfer to Dantewada, is no longer required to be examined, and the complainant and other material prosecution witnesses have already completed their evidence. Further, the matrimonial proceedings between the parties at Dantewada have also culminated in favour of the applicant. Thus, the principal circumstances which weighed with this Court while transferring the trial no longer survive. He further submits that the direction for expeditious conclusion of the trial, the prosecution evidence has been delayed due to repeated non- appearance of the remaining witnesses, particularly the medical expert. The prosecution evidence is now at its concluding stage, and upon its closure the applicant will have to lead defence evidence. Continuation of the trial at Dantewada would cause 4 substantial hardship and financial burden to the applicant and his defence witnesses, who are primarily situated at Durg and adjoining areas. The applicant is also represented by a senior counsel suffering from age-related health ailments, for whom repeated travel to Dantewada is difficult. He also submits that the present petition is not an attempt to review or challenge the correctness of the earlier transfer order, which was justified on the circumstances then prevailing, but is based exclusively on subsequent events which have materially altered the factual matrix and shifted the balance of convenience. In the changed circumstances, continuation of the trial at Dantewada no longer serves the purpose for which it was transferred and may cause avoidable hardship to the applicant in effectively conducting his defence. It is, therefore, expedient in the interest of justice that Sessions Trial No. 204/2025 be transferred back to the competent Court at Durg for its expeditious conclusion. 5. Learned counsel appearing for State/respondent No.1 opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. Section 447 BNSS empowers this Court to transfer a case only when a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, a complex question of law arises, or transfer is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice or for the general convenience of all parties and witnesses. 5 8. It is not in dispute that the present Sessions Trial was earlier transferred from Durg to Dantewada by order dated 03.12.2025 passed in TPCR No.27/2025. The petitioner has sought a fresh transfer primarily on the ground that the circumstances which prevailed at the time of the earlier order have subsequently changed. The complainant and other material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the complainant’s mother is no longer required to be examined and the matrimonial proceedings at Dantewada have also culminated. These developments are certainly relevant while considering the present prayer. However, the mere fact that some of the circumstances which weighed with the Court at the time of passing the earlier transfer order have subsequently ceased to exist, cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient ground for transferring the trial again. The Court is required to consider whether, in the changed circumstances, continuation of the trial at the present place would result in denial of a fair trial or whether transfer has become expedient in the interest of justice or for the general convenience of the parties and witnesses. 9. In the present case, the prosecution evidence is stated to be at the concluding stage and only the medical expert and the Investigating Officer remain to be examined. The trial has, therefore, substantially progressed at Dantewada. At this stage, transferring the trial to another Court would, instead of facilitating expeditious conclusion, have the potential of causing further delay 6 in the disposal of the case. The submission regarding inconvenience to the petitioner, his defence witnesses and counsel has also been considered. Undoubtedly, the convenience of the parties and witnesses is a relevant consideration under Section 447 of the BNSS. However, such convenience has to be weighed against the stage of the proceedings and the overall interests of justice. Mere inconvenience or additional expense in attending the proceedings at Dantewada, particularly when the trial has substantially progressed, cannot by itself constitute a sufficient ground for transfer. So far as the submission regarding the health condition of the learned senior counsel is concerned, the same may be considered by the learned trial Court while regulating the proceedings and ensuring reasonable accommodation, wherever permissible in accordance with law. Such circumstance, by itself, does not warrant transfer of the entire Sessions Trial, particularly when no prejudice to the petitioner’s right to a fair and effective defence has been demonstrated. 10. It is also significant that no material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner would not receive a fair and impartial trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dantewada, or that any circumstance presently exists which would render continuation of the trial at Dantewada prejudicial to the petitioner. The earlier order of transfer was passed on the circumstances then prevailing. The subsequent developments, though relevant, 7 do not establish that the continuation of the trial at Dantewada has become inexpedient in the interest of justice. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no sufficient ground has been made out for exercise of the power of transfer under Section 447 of the BNSS. At this advanced stage of the trial, transferring the proceedings back to Durg would not serve the cause of expeditious disposal and may result in further delay. 11. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. 12. The learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the remaining prosecution evidence and thereafter proceed with the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law. 13. A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial Court concerned for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil