Change in manner of hearing final arguments does not constitute bias justifying transfer of criminal proceedings.

The petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 02/2019, titled Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sumedh Singh Saini & others, which is currently at the stage of final arguments

On 23.09.2025, the predecessor Presiding Officer directed that arguments be heard first specifically on the point of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Following a transfer of the Presiding Officer, the successor judge initially fixed the matter for arguments on sanction but subsequently, on 07.01.2026, directed that final arguments be addressed comprehensively on both the merits and the point of sanction

Perceiving this procedural shift as an "unexplained overturning" of a previous order, the petitioners alleged bias and sought a transfer of the case to another court

The Principal District and Sessions Judge rejected this transfer request via an order dated 17.03.2026, which is the subject of the current challenge before the High Court

1. Whether a trial court's discretionary decision to hear final arguments comprehensively, rather than in a phased manner, constitutes a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying a transfer of the case.

The court emphasized that the power to transfer a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations, as such orders have a "depressing, demoralizing, and disconsolate impact" on the concerned judge

The court distinguished the precedent in Kanaklata v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2015) 6 SCC 617, noting that a transfer is only warranted when judicial observations are so strongly worded that they create a "reasonable apprehension" in the mind of a litigant, rather than a mere procedural disagreement

the procedural manner of hearing arguments is within the wisdom and discretion of the Trial Court

The Court found the petitioners' apprehension to be "unfounded, specious, and misplaced"

It reasoned that a court’s preference to hear final arguments comprehensively does not indicate bias or a predetermination of the outcome

The High Court noted that the legal answer to the issue of sanction remains constant whether it is addressed in isolation or alongside the merits of the case

the Court observed that the case is aged and was previously transferred from Haryana to Delhi; since the Presiding Judge is already in the midst of final arguments, no justifiable reason for transfer exists

The Court further distinguished the petitioners' reliance on Kanaklata, explaining that the present case involved a routine procedural decision regarding the conduct of arguments, rather than the "strongly worded" adverse observations regarding the misuse of statutes that characterized the cited precedent

The petitioners were characterized as "hypersensitive" litigants who had jumped to unwarranted conclusions

The Court held that the manner in which a Trial Court chooses to hear final arguments is a matter of judicial discretion and does not provide a valid ground for the transfer of proceedings

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly