A reasonable, evidence-based apprehension of threat justifies transferring criminal proceedings to secure a fair trial.

The petitioner, a journalist and editor-publisher, sought transfer of C.R. No. 16 of 2025, instituted under Section 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (as recorded in the judgment), from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala.

He alleged that, while appearing before the Gomati Court on 10 February 2026, a group led by one Jassim Uddin obstructed him and his advocate, attempted to assault him, tried to snatch his mobile phone, abused him, demanded ₹20,00,000, and threatened to kill him.

The petitioner lodged an FIR at West Agartala Police Station, which was registered as a Zero FIR.

He apprehended that returning to the Udaipur Court Complex would endanger his life and prevent him from effectively defending the case.

A police final report was subsequently filed in relation to the alleged incident; the petitioner contended that the investigation was defective and that he had not yet received notice enabling him to file a protest petition.

Two connected civil suits instituted by Jassim Uddin had already been transferred by a coordinate Bench on similar grounds concerning the petitioner’s apprehension of threat to his life.

Whether the petitioner had established a reasonable and credible apprehension that he would be unable to obtain a fair opportunity to represent himself, or that his safety would be endangered, if C.R. No. 16 of 2025 continued before the Gomati Court?

Whether, in the circumstances, the High Court should exercise its power to withdraw and transfer the criminal case from the jurisdictional Court at Gomati to the Court at West Tripura, Agartala?

The Court applied the principle that the power to transfer a criminal proceeding under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only where a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is genuinely placed in peril and the apprehension is founded on credible material rather than conjecture or surmise.

The Court relied on Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, 1979 AIR 468, which recognises that the safety of an accused or complainant and the maintenance of a detached, peaceful atmosphere are essential conditions of a fair trial, and that transfer may be warranted where threats or persistent disorder at the venue impair access to justice.

It also considered Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 Legal Eagle (SC) 627, which requires credible material demonstrating that impartial justice is not possible and directs courts to consider the convenience of all parties, witnesses, prosecution, and the jurisdictional forum.

The Court further referred to Abdul Nazar Madan v. State of T.N., (2000) 6 SCC 204; Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307; Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 6 SCC 358; and Dinesh Mahajan v. Vishal Mahajan, 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 12158, reiterating that a mere unsubstantiated apprehension is insufficient, but a reasonable and supported apprehension affecting fair justice can justify transfer.

The Court found that the petitioner’s apprehension was not merely imaginary or based on hypersensitivity.

The alleged incident involved an attempted assault, an effort to seize his mobile phone, abusive conduct, a monetary demand, and a threat to kill him while he was attending court proceedings.

The lodging of a Zero FIR provided contemporaneous support for the petitioner’s allegation, distinguishing the case from situations where no complaint or other material had been produced.

Further, the coordinate Bench had already transferred a connected civil suit on the same factual basis and had expressed doubt regarding the fairness of the investigation into the alleged incident, particularly because statements of persons named by the petitioner, including police personnel allegedly present, had not been recorded.

In light of that finding, the Court held that the petitioner had reasonable grounds to fear a repetition of the incident and that his ability to participate effectively in the Gomati proceedings could be compromised.

It therefore declined to take a divergent view from the coordinate Bench and concluded that the requirements for transfer were satisfied.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, was directed to transmit the record immediately after completing the necessary formalities, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, was directed to notify both parties upon receipt of the record.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.