1 2026:CGHC:18782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 7 of 2026 1 - Ritesh Chandrakar S/o Jagannath Chandrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Rautpara, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 2 - Mahendra Ramteke @ Chhotu Ramteke S/o Late Vasudev Ramteke Aged About 30 Years R/o Rautpara, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 3 - Suresh Chandrakar S/o Jagannath Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Rautpara, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 4 - Dinesh Chandrakar S/o Jagannath Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/o Rautpara, Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 2 - Yukesh Chandrakar S/o. Late Chenna Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/o.- Basaguda Presently Residing Pujaripara, Bijapur, P.S. Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) seeks transfer of Sessions Trial No. 55/2025 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, District – South Bastar Dantewada to the Court of District and Sessions Court Bastar-Jagdalpur. 3. Brief facts necessary for the case according to the petitioners is that the petitioners are accused in Crime No. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur, for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 61(2)(a), 239, 249 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, in connection with the murder of Mukesh Chandrakar. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, and subsequently, charges were framed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada on 12.08.2025, whereafter the trial commenced. During the pendency of trial, considering the sensitivity of the case and security concerns, particularly as the deceased was a news reporter, the Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail Bijapur, sought permission for transfer of 3 the petitioners to another jail for safety and administrative reasons, which was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, vide order dated 13.01.2025, directing their transfer to Central Jail Jagdalpur, District Bastar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Trial No. 55/2025 (State of C.G. v. Ritesh Chandrakar & Ors.) is presently pending before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, and the petitioners/accused persons are lodged in judicial custody at Central Jail Jagdalpur, District Bastar. The petitioners were transferred from Sub-Jail Bijapur to Central Jail Jagdalpur vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, on account of their safety as well as for proper jail administration. He further submits that the distance between Jagdalpur (District Bastar) and South Bastar Dantewada is more than 80 kilometers, and for every date of hearing, the administration is required to transport the petitioners over such a long distance, causing logistical difficulties and security concerns during transit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension that any untoward incident may occur during their transit to South Bastar Dantewada, thereby putting their safety at risk. In view of the same, it is just, proper, and expedient in the interest of justice, safety, and effective administration that Sessions Trial No. 55/2025 (State of C.G. v. 4 Ritesh Chandrakar & Ors.) be transferred from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bastar Jagdalpur. He later submits that the said transfer is beneficial for all the witnesses including the complainant as they belong to Bijapur and there will be easy access to the trial Court at Jagdalpur to conclude the same expeditiously. 6. Learned counsel appearing for State/respondent No.1 opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 8. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 06.04.2026, the Director General, Jail & Correctional Services, Jail Headquarter, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar has filed his personal affidavit stating that the petitioners/accused, namely Ritesh Chandrakar and three others, are under trial in Sessions Trial No. 55/2025 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada and are presently lodged in Central Jail Jagdalpur after being transferred from Sub-Jail Bijapur on 13.01.2025 on account of security concerns owing to the sensitive nature of the case and availability of better infrastructural and security arrangements at Jagdalpur, which transfer was effected after obtaining due permission from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur in accordance with the provisions of the 5 Prisons Act, 1894 and the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual. It is further stated that there is no difficulty on the part of the jail administration in producing the accused persons before the trial Court, however, production of under trial prisoners is carried out through the local police force depending upon availability of escort personnel and resources, and at times, due to such constraints, all prisoners may not be produced on each date of hearing. It is also stated that the jail authorities are willing and equipped to facilitate production through video conferencing to ensure expeditious trial, and further expressed readiness to transfer the petitioners to District Jail Dantewada, subject to orders of the trial Court. It is also stated that no delay has been caused on the part of the jail administration and all necessary steps shall be taken to ensure production of the accused persons on the next date of hearing i.e. 04.05.2026 in coordination with the police authorities, while reiterating utmost respect for the orders of this Court. 9. Section 447 BNSS confers power upon this Court to transfer a case only when it is shown that a fair and impartial trial cannot be conducted, or such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice or general convenience of parties and witnesses. Mere inconvenience in transportation or generalized apprehension without any substantive material is not sufficient to invoke such extraordinary jurisdiction. 6 10. From the record, it is evident that the petitioners were transferred from Sub-Jail Bijapur to Central Jail Jagdalpur on account of administrative and security considerations and the grounds raised by the petitioners are primarily based on inconvenience in transit and apprehension of security risk. However, such apprehension is general in nature and not supported by any specific material indicating a real or imminent threat. Mere inconvenience or administrative difficulty cannot be a ground for transfer of trial. Moreover, the affidavit filed by the Director General, Jail & Correctional Services clearly indicates that there is no difficulty in producing the petitioners before the trial Court and necessary arrangements, including production through video conferencing, are available to ensure smooth conduct of the trial. 11. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioners would not receive a fair and impartial trial before the Court at South Bastar Dantewada. On the contrary, adequate safeguards exist to ensure their production and participation in trial proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that transfer of the trial, as sought, may adversely affect the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses, who are largely local to the area where the offence was committed, may face difficulty and potential risk in travelling to another district for deposition. Such transfer may therefore not only inconvenience the witnesses but may also expose them to avoidable security concerns. 7 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegations, sensitivity of the case, and the fact that there is no difficulty in producing the petitioners before the trial Court and necessary arrangements, including production through video conferencing, are available to ensure smooth conduct of the trial, this Court is of the opinion that no case for transfer is made out. 13. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil