A complainant’s threat allegations do not justify transfer absent grounds under Section 447 BNSS.

The petitioner, the de facto complainant and CW1, sought transfer of Sessions Case No. 5029/2025 from the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at Sindhanur, to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur.

He alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had threatened him and his family, preventing him from attending court at Sindhanur.

In a separate petition, the High Court had given him liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the trial court and directed that court to consider protection for him and other witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Accused No. 1 did not appear despite service; the State and accused No. 2 opposed the transfer petition.

1. Whether the petitioner established a ground under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to transfer the sessions case from Sindhanur to Raichur.

2. Whether the petitioner’s allegation of threats warranted transfer, given the directions made in his separate petition concerning bail cancellation and witness protection.

Section 447 BNSS empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case where a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be held, a question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or transfer is required by the Sanhita, would tend to the general convenience of parties or witnesses, or is expedient in the interests of justice.

The applicant must establish a statutory ground for transfer; the provision does not make transfer automatic upon an allegation of threats.

The Court also referred to its prior order directing the trial court to consider appropriate action under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and to consider cancellation of bail if a breach of bail conditions were established.

The petitioner’s sole asserted basis for transfer was that threats by the accused prevented him from attending court at Sindhanur.

The Court considered that concern in light of its prior order, which had already provided for the petitioner to seek bail cancellation and directed the trial court to take necessary steps under the Witness Protection Scheme if the alleged threat was established.

It further held that the petition did not establish any of the grounds specified in Section 447 BNSS for transferring the case.

Accordingly, the threat allegation, in the circumstances presented, did not justify the requested transfer.

The prior directions concerning possible bail cancellation and witness protection remained the measures available to address the petitioner’s allegations.