Complainant Who Lost Wife, Daughter And Son In Farmhouse Fire Won’t Get Trial Moved, As Karnataka HC Says Fear Of Threats Alone Isn’t Enough

The petitioner, the complainant and a survivor of a fatal arson attack at his farmhouse, sought transfer of Sessions Case No. 10073/2025 from the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Mudhol, to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

He apprehended that the accused were locally influential and that attending court at Mudhol would expose him and his family to risk; he also stated that Belagavi was more accessible from his current residence in Kolhapur.

The State opposed transfer, arguing that apprehension alone was insufficient and that witness protection could be sought instead.

The petition invoked Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which provides for transfer of cases.

The Court held that a mere apprehension of threat is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to transfer a case; the complainant and witnesses may seek protection under the Witness Protection Act, and the police have a duty to provide protection enabling witnesses to attend court and testify impartially.

The petitioner relied on the deaths and injuries caused by the incident, the accused persons’ alleged local influence, his continuing fear, and Belagavi’s relative accessibility from Kolhapur.

The Court accepted that he had expressed apprehension but found that apprehension alone did not warrant transfer.

It considered witness protection an available alternative and placed responsibility on the police to facilitate safe and impartial testimony.

The criminal petition was dismissed.