Judicial procedural directions and addition of graver charges do not constitute grounds for transfer of trial.

The applicant, Rohani Sahu, was charged under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 135 of the Electricity Act following an FIR dated 29.06.2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s unauthorized electricity connection caused the fatal electrocution of one Ramnaresh Sahu.

During proceedings, the Special Court (Electricity Act), Maihar, reportedly directed the addition of Section 105 of the BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) via a supplementary charge-sheet.

The applicant filed a transfer petition under Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Satna, on 18.03.2026.

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court under Section 447(2) of the BNSS seeking transfer of the case, alleging judicial bias.

1. Whether an alleged oral direction by a trial court to add a graver offence in a charge-sheet constitutes a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying a transfer of the case.

2. Whether the dissatisfaction with procedural or judicial orders passed by a trial court serves as sufficient grounds for transferring criminal proceedings.

Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to transfer cases.

The established legal principle that the transfer of a criminal case is an "extraordinary remedy" granted only upon a "reasonable and substantiated apprehension" that justice will not be fairly administered.

The Court further emphasized that the addition of sections in a charge-sheet is within the domain of investigation and that judicial dissatisfaction or suspicion does not meet the threshold for transfer.

The Court observed that the applicant’s primary grievance—the addition of Section 105 BNS—was based on an alleged oral observation of the Magistrate.

The Court reasoned that such observations are not legally enforceable judicial directions and do not interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings.

Furthermore, the Court noted that since the stage of framing of charges had not yet been reached, the applicant retained the full opportunity to contest the applicability of the offences before the trial court; thus, the apprehension of bias was "premature".

The Court highlighted that the applicant failed to demonstrate any personal malice or lack of integrity on the part of the Presiding Officer.

It concluded that mere procedural grievances or dissatisfaction with judicial orders are insufficient to justify the relocation of a trial.

The High Court affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge, Satna, and dismissed the application, stating it was devoid of merit.

Judicial interventions regarding the charge-sheet do not, by themselves, constitute bias if proper legal remedies are available to the accused at the stage of framing charges.