43-APPLN-17-2026 (CR).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2026 Neha Balkrishna Patil ] Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents ..... Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. P.P. Deokar, A.P.P, for Respondent No. 1 and 2 – State. Mr. Aditya Sanjay Ghatge, for Respondent No.3. Mr. Khandu Gaikwad, P.S.I, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur, present. ….. CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Applicant seeks transfer of R.C.C.No.203 of 2024, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Pune. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned A.P.P, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State and the learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shailaja SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2026.09.04 18:34:43 +0530 43-APPLN-17-2026 (CR).odt 3. The first ground argued by the Applicant is that she apprehends that a fair and impartial trial may not be possible within the local jurisdiction at Kolhapur. Secondly, she submits that she has suffered a serious and traumatic accident and, therefore, is unable to attend the proceedings at Kolhapur. Lastly, she submits that the accused has continued to stalk her through digital means and on the LinkedIn platform and, therefore, seeks transfer of the proceedings. 4. The learned A.P.P. as well as the learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 opposed the Application contending that the charge has already been framed and the examination-in-chief of the Applicant has partly been recorded on 18th June, 2025. On these grounds, they urged dismissal of the Application. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Advocates and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur. As such, the Court at Kolhapur is competent to try and entertain the proceedings. Apart from this, the trial has already commenced, and the Applicant has entered into the witness box. Her examination-in-chief has also been partly recorded. In such an eventuality, it would not be appropriate to transfer the part-heard trial to another Court. Shailaja 43-APPLN-17-2026 (CR).odt 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the stage of the proceedings, I am not inclined to transfer the proceedings from Kolhapur to Pune on the grounds urged by the Applicant. 7. The Application being bereft of merits stands rejected. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) Shailaja